folks want to know, they want to knowt the problem is solved, that it's got away. i think that's the biggest thing that would faces. in order to get there, there are some documents that need to be done. the documentation so that we can transfer as you mentioned a bit earlier, where there's going to be at arlington cemetery. we want to make sure the right procedures and documents are in place to facilitate any transition from the current executive director to one that would follow. those be the two biggest and i think the other one if i could just add one more would be the overall long-term expansion of the cemetery to be able to accommodate the burials. i think that would be one of the we need to really make sure that we have the right plants that have been executed. i know ms. condon and her campaign that has gone after that. those, in my mind those are the big three.

>> martin? >> yes, i will certainly fall back to the area that i'm most familiar with come which is the contact management and oversight. and you mentioned the fact of the funds that had not been recovered. and that's especially important to have accurate contact data because that allows you to be able to track and identify where the funds are. in our report we talk about the fact arlington also has no your money. so with money that doesn't have a fiscal year kind of indian companies even more important. >> why is that? what is it that arlington doesn't have a fiscal year like every other part of government? >> well, the funds for the cemetery are no year funds. >> i know, but why? why don't we change that? >> i'm not sure in terms of why. i don't think arlington or the army would necessarily come for

to ask it be changed, but i'm not sure. i mean, there's some history there in terms of the fact that it is -- >> but that's exactly what led to this, i said in a given set of rules for arlington contributed to the lack of accountability at arlington for many years. and if it were not for brave whistleblowers we still wouldn't be where we need to be. people that work at arlington knew that things were going badly, and nothing was happening. part of that was just no year into money. is there a recommendation that should be made that we should and the notion that arlington should not have fiscal year appropriation like anybody else would? >> center, we did not look at that as a part of our audit. the gao is on record as saying when you have no year funds then there's more accountability involved in that. so from the perspective for me in terms of, or gao in contracting going forward, i

would say it's the insight and oversight in terms of contracting that's important. there are still some things that need to be done. senator tester talked about the importance of looking to see, can we consolidate ms. condon and her staff has certain done the. she mentioned having several contracts for landscaping, and now they have fewer contracts, although that's important. leveraging the expertise of itaa, also is a very important steps. now it's a matter of again getting the insight and continue with the oversight of the contracts from our perspective is very important going forward. >> madam chairman, you asked what we thought were sort of the key things that the cemetery needs to focus on going forward. i certainly agree with what my colleagues have stated today. i might also suggest that one of the key things from where i sit is going to be ensuring that the

changes that have been made to date are sustainable and will outlive the current leadership team. and i think to their credit, the review that we did suggest they have begun that process of giving, if you will, from going through the crisis, working to the crisis, and begin to put in place the kinds of policies, procedures and systems that, if implemented fully, if fully implemented should outlive the current leadership team so we don't ever have a situation again where it takes herculean efforts from very dedicated senior people to make this work. the whole idea here is that eventually they will move onto some other thing, whatever that is, some of the stage of their life, and whoever the next generation of leaders are coming into arlington shouldn't have to reinvent the system. >> turnkey. >> a turnkey operation.

or a plug and play operation am actually. it seems that for our recommendations with. and i think that is the key issue for them right now. >> ms. condon? >> if i could address the no year money. how did that happen and when did it happen? >> arlington was a designated as a civil work activity, and hence it was no year funds. but one of the first things that i did with the help of our secretary of financial management and comptroller is to put in an accounting system. and now that arlington is part of the general fund enterprise business system, we're not going to be fiscally transparent. so the financial management community can now see how we extend each and every dollar. the benefit of having no year money was one of the benefits of being able to recoup those unliquidated obligations from prior years and to be able to apply them to the projects that we have ongoing right now.

together those unliquidated obligations were able to start and finance, and were able to put in all of those i.t. issues. were able to address and putting the technology and by the right equipment to get arlington to where it is today. so having no year money from that perspective has been a benefit for myself and others who to put in the changes we need a grid now we're under, we're fiscally transparent so it doesn't matter if we're one year money or no year money. we truly, every dollar is now in an accounting system that is being monitored. unlike every other process in the army. >> i'm confused but i think everyone would like no year money. we wouldn't be dumping any fuel if we had no year money because no one would feel the need to hurry and spend year-end. so there's arguments that can be made for the. on the other hand, we have an appropriations process that is a manual process, and a

justification on an annual basis, and that also has a great deal of merit in terms of fiscal accountability. and i think, i understand you could use money that wasn't used with other things you needed, but most parts of government can't do that. they had to come back and justify to congress that they have additional needs that there should be appropriations for them. i have a hard time believing that arlington would have difficulty getting appropriations because i think this body has great respect for what that represents to our country, and one would want to find it appropriate. i'm just trying to figure out if we've got transparency, good, but maybe they year-end funds is a discipline that everyone should have. and i'm not asking you to say yes or no here. i'm just thinking i think it's something we need to take a look at. >> understood, and what we did is we do report the carrier were very summer to the working capital fund that you carry over

from year to year. so we report those numbers. you asked what is the most outstanding challenge from my perspective we're facing at arlington right now. as you know, and as you have witnessed, the incredible changes to the business processes that we put in place at arlington, and what i need right now is the patience for us to allow, to look at those processes, to make sure that we have the right metrics, that we have the systems right so that we can truly sustained the changes that we've made at arlington up until this point. so we just need to test all of the i.t. support and all of the changes that we've made to the operational procedures. and so what i just need now is, my biggest challenge is patience because in this next year that's what the superintendent and i are doing is to make sure that those changes that we have put in place can be sustained for generations, not just for the

immediate future. >> i want to thank all of you for the work on this. it is, it was quite an undertaking. and for those out there that are skeptical about the ability of government to fix problems, on a timetable, i think this is a great poster child for people deciding that this work was important, and it deserves lots of eyes. and a lot of effort from a lot of people, and i think that the army, and i've said this to top leadership in the army. i understood that the army was more upset than anyone else about the problems at arlington. all of us can kiss kiss and bemoan the incompetence that had occurred there. but i don't think anyone felt more accurately than the arm

picks i think the army responded in a way that reflects the dedication they have to the phone. and i am impressed that the amount of progress that has been made is substantial and significant. frankly, at lightning speed for government. within 18 months we have a completely different protocol at arlington as it relates to accountability. and i think it's a good. we still have work to do, and i have said from the beginning that the oversight of this committee would not end until people sat in front of this diocese and said, i think the challenges have been met, and i think all the processes and procedures are in place, and i see no problems that need to be addressed by additional oversight. no one said that today, so we will have another hearing. i'm sure it will be a year from now, and at that point in time,

general, i'm sure you have more information to report because i know you're planning on going back out to take another look at arlington. and i want to complement ms. condon, because even when things were discovered that were not good, her office checked in with this committee and let us know that another problem had been discovered. i think there might've been a tendency to say well, they will never know, let's just get it fixed. but instead there has been transparency and that is very good. so congratulations for that. and most particularly, congratulations to all the men and women who have worked hard at arlington. many of them who have worked their many years and care deeply about the reputation and the method with which we take care of the problems there. and sank you to gao. will have another hearing in probably about a year. in the meantime, if problems service, i would even need to continue to let us know and we'll continue to monitor the situation. and thank you for all the progress that has been made. this hearing is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> in a few moments, former presidential candidate fred thompson says the electoral college should be abolished.

>> former tennessee senator and 2008 presidential candidate fred thompson recently suggested that the electoral college be abolished and that the president be elected by popular vote. he spoke in south carolina just before that state's primary election. this is a little more than an hour. >> we are ready to start again. thank you so much for being patient with is why we reset the stage. we have a great afternoon full of wonderful issue topics. and our first topic is going to be popular vote versus electoral college. this panel will decide the private differences that -- once i will be supporting the electoral college. please join me in welcoming our

moderator, lewis the rich. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. as ruth said, today's panel is going to discuss the national popular vote bill which is actually an interstate compact. and with us today are six prominent individuals. [inaudible] >> is that better? there you go. i'm bad with mic. with us today we have three individuals who wish to speak in favor of the compact. on my immediate right i have tom golisano, chair and national spokesman of the support popular vote. beyond him is senator fred thompson, who needs no introduction from me. [applause] on our far right is ray haynes, former national chairman of the american legislative exchange council. to my immediate left, chairman of the louisiana republican

party. john samples of the cato institute. and hans von spakovsky, and that wasn't easy but i think i got it right. of the heritage foundation. we will begin with a six minute opening, obviously in traditional terms, those speaking in favor of the compact with the first. gentlemen can have six minutes. why change the existing system? and how will it impact in practical terms the choice of president and vice president. >> thank you mr. moderator. first of all, as the moderator mitcham my name is tom golisano, the recently lives most of my life in upstate newark and now a florida resident. i was one of these people that watched the electoral process -- [inaudible] >> i'm sorry? [inaudible] >> sure. i was one of the people that

observed the election process every year. didn't quite understand blue states, red states, lie over, battleground, swing, all of those terms that can be used. and also the general knowledge that everything seemed to be focused on just a few number of states. when i woke up wednesday more, what i wanted to know is who became president of the united states and get my vote count. and i didn't particularly care whether my state voted one way or another. i was just most interested to see who the president of the united states was. who became president of the united states. what we have today is called winner-take-all rule. i'm sure most of you are familiar with the. basically it means that if candidate a gets one more vote than 50% in a particular state, all of those states electoral votes will go for that

candidate. and literally ignoring the other 49.9% of the voters that voted for the other candidate. that's the winner-take-all rule. it's been in existence since about the 1830s. states, according to the constitution of the united states, have the right and the responsibility to award their electoral votes in the way they see fit. for a number of years, obviously 180 years, about, the states have chosen the winner-take-all rule except for a couple of exceptions. those two exceptions are maine and nebraska. they award their electoral votes by congressional district. also the state of massachusetts over the years has changed the way they award their electoral votes a number of times. we also a situation this past fall and the state of pennsylvania where a senate, or a legislative leader and the governor backed a proposal to go to the congressional district role in the state of pennsylvania. it was also approach in a state

of wisconsin. there was not much favor for that kind of a proposal and it was quickly withdrawn. as i said, the states have the right to decide how to award their electoral votes. the winner-take-all rule does create some problems. and that's what support popular vote is all about. we want to solve these problems. the first problem is four times in history of the united states out of 56 presidential elections, the candidate with the least number of votes won the election. and, of course, this is because of the nature of the winner-take-all rule, where states could award their votes but not necessarily aggregate population for the country. as i said it happened four times out of our last 56, or only 56 elections. all of you i'm sure our for me with what happened in 2000.

a very contested race. it came down to one state, the state of florida, and those electoral votes by very narrow margin which one candidate and the candidate with the least number of votes became president. also in 2004, many of you may not remember this or know this, but if the state of ohio had 66,000 more people vote for john kerry, john kerry would've been the president of the united states. even though george w. bush had 3.3 million more votes than john kerry. can you imagine the a people and the uproar if that had happened and john kerry had become president with 3 million plus votes? >> let me interject. we will run out of for six minutes in a moment that i would like to from senator thompson and ray as well. >> mr. moderator, our plan was to have me do it. is that right? how do you guys decide to do it. i apologize.

>> no problem but i am concerned about the time, too. one other issue relative to the winner-take-all rule, relative to who wins the election, when you're only dealing with five and 38 electoral votes, or 269 per side on average, you have the very large possibility of a tie in the number of electoral votes. in case of a tie, and i believe it's happened once in our history, the decision to the next president of the united states would be which go to the house of representatives to add up to anybody in this country thinks that is probably a very good idea to have happen. the second problem with the winner-take-all rule, it has great a phenomenon. a phenomenon where our country is divided into two groups. flyover states and battleground states or swing states. a flyover state is during the general election, a candidate, both parties probably come will spend very little time, or no time, in 35 to 38 of our states.

many because through polling it's been very well determine who is going to get at least to 50% to win all the electoral votes. so consequently there is no purpose for a candidate to talk to the people in that state. this is not good for the country. candidates don't learn the issues, the concerns by not visiting 35 or 38 states. quite frankly the states on the other side, the battleground states get far more attention than they probably deserve. >> do you want to wrap it up a? >> no. what i need is to put on my glasses. in the 2008 election, 98% of the resources spent on campaign elections for presidency during the general election were spent in one quarter of the states. 98% of the time and resources were spent in one quarter of the

states. can you imagine ignoring the issues and concerns of 225 million people for the presidential campaign? and also it's a known fact that turnout rates, voter turnout rates and battleground states are 7% higher than they are in flyover states, which means there's an obvious disincentive for people to vote in flyover states. generally speaking, in the state of new york you would always ask yourself why bother voting, because new york has always been democratic and all the electoral votes have gone to the democratic candidate. we are electing the president of the united states, not the president of the battleground states. and the third issue we have is every vote should count equally. i think that's a basic premise or turn that every american probably believes in. but how could we have a situation where a vote in ohio or florida can be so much more important than a vote in texas or california? but that is the situation we have because of the winner-take-all rule.

can you imagine trying to explain this to your children? now, how do we solve this problem? we are on our way. first of all, 65% of the voters in a recent gallup poll indicated that they want to go to the popular vote. the most, the candidate with the most votes in the entire country becomes the president of the united states. i think that number 65% would probably be higher if more people understood the winner-take-all rule and what it means. second, we have states representing 132 electoral votes that authority passed legislation to go to the national popular vote, a compact that is conditional upon is getting 270 electoral votes or states representing 270 electoral votes which means we're halfway there. we are halfway there. considering the level of public airing and publicity, and this

activity has had, it's quite a remarkable event. and now, of course, it's become a national event. it's the goal of the support popular vote to encourage all the other states to pass this legislation so that the next president of the united states can be elected by the popular vote, which is really the will of all the people. now, if it doesn't get all passed by july 21 and it would apply to the 2016th election. this would guarantee that the candidate with the most votes nationwide would always win the election. same way we elect our student class president, the same way we elect our governors and our senators. the candidate with the most votes went. >> in fairness, i'm constrained to give you guys some additional time i think. so what about a? why change an existing system that's been in place for hundreds of years? what effect would have on the

presidential, choice of our presidents and vice presidents? >> i'm going to go first. i'm hans von spakovsky, from heritage foundation, and john samples and i have cato, we held a quick caucus and we decide to split the time. no recount necessary. this is a bad idea. the way the national popular vote people are going about it is both unconstitutional and it's bad public policy. basically the way it would work is a state would award is electoral college vote not based on what the voters in that state say, but on the national unofficial popular vote totals. i kind of doubt the people of south carolina, if in the general election, they voted for whoever the gop candidate is going to be would be very happy with their electoral college votes get awarded to perhaps the incumbent president if, in fact, he wins nationally. it's unconstitutional because they are doing this with a compact, and they say that was

enough states to legislators have passed this, the equal, a majority of the electoral votes needed to win, that goes into effect. well, excuse me, take a look at the constitution and what does it say about compacts between the states? has to be approved by congress. if you really think this is such a great idea, then why don't they go through the process of the many the constitution as you're supposed to with three quarters of the states and two-thirds of congress approving it? from a public policy standpoint this would actually diminish the influence of smaller states in rural areas. it would lead to more recounts and contentious conflicts. it would encourage voter fraud, and it would radicalize american politics. the whole purpose of the electoral college originally if you look at the debates during the constitutional convention was the framers did not want a candidate for president only

going to urban areas to get votes. they wanted him to also go to rural and smaller states. and that's why a state, no matter how small their population, gets three electoral college vote. it's early to smaller states don't get as much attention as larger states, but that problem would get worse under the national popular vote plan. now, they will possibly tell you, you know, candidates just pay attention to swing states, battleground states. well, guess what? battleground in swing states change. up until about 15 years ago california was actually a place that tended to vote republican for president. florida was actually a pretty sure seat for republicans until about the mid 1990s. swing states change. what doesn't change are the big urban population areas. and think of this. because the state, has to award

their electoral college votes whoever wins the national popular vote. listen, if you're in a small state with a small population, say maybe rhode island, even if a candidate decides he doesn't want to go through the process of qualifying for the ballot in your state for the general election, you are still going to have toward your electoral college votes to the individual. and people who are not eligible to vote in your state may be influencing how you award your electoral college votes. what i mean by that? most states if you're in prison you can vote. but you can if you're in vermont or maine. ends up utility in eligible in your states will be able to vote. everybody looks back at the 2000 election and the recount that happened there, and we had to wait what, five weeks to know who was president. that was a recount though in just one state. we have the most decentralized

election system of any western democracy. and the recount rules are different in every state. and that means that if a national election was so close that one side thought a recount should be put in place, we really have no idea how that would happen. because some states might agree to it. other states might not agree to it because the election in their particular state is not close enough. but if we had a national recount it would make florida 2000 look like something that was easy. because and a national recount, every vote in every precinct in every county in every state could make a difference in a national election, and you would have lawyers litigating whether voters should be counted, not just in a couple of counties in florida, that in every county in every state across the country.

it's a situation quite frankly if i could steal a line from one of our opponents, fred thompson, you know, from one of my favorite movies, die hard with a vengeance, you would have, we would have to stack them, rackham, stacking and packing, the possum all of the country to do that. why would encourage voter fraud? because right now if you live in a one party state, perhaps a state where the other party doesn't have observers, can't watch what happens and where is easy to commit voter fraud, maybe you can steal enough votes to throw that particular state but you probably can't stop enough ballots into a ballot box, steal the entire election. but if every single vote stuff into a ballot box could make the difference in a close national election, then in the worst one party state that you should be stuffing ballot boxes as much as you can.

finally, this would radicalize american politics and it's a way of european icing our politics. why do i say that? a national popular vote plan would award the presidency not who wins a majority of the vote, but to whoever gets the most votes, a plurality. what does that mean? it means it would encourage regional candidates, regional regional parties. and if you end up with three or four or even five people on the ballot for president, then the winner somebody who wins with as small as 35, 30%, 25% of the vote. one of the advantages of the electoral college and the winner-take-all system is that even when we close elections, because of the winner-take-all system, the president is elected with a majority of electoral college votes, and there is no question, no one questions his legitimacy and his mandate to rule.

i'm a son of immigrants, okay? my mother grew up in knots he journeyed to my father was a white russian who thought the comments before blinkered they ended up in a refugee camp in europe and they came in early 1950s. one of the things my father always told me was americans really take something for granted. something that is unique in history and one of the best features of our american democracy. it is that we have are over 220 years had an orderly and peaceful transition of power of the greatest and most powerful country in the world. that doesn't happen very often. and part of the reason for that is not, you know, just the constitutional declaration of independence, a part of the reason for the is the electoral college. and those who want to change it have a very high burden of proof

to show that we should change that kind of system that is given us this peaceful transition of power, and they cannot meet that burden. thanks. >> john, you still have a few minutes if you liked. >> thanks very much, and thanks for tremont for the. i'm john samples. i've written on this subject, and so i would like to tell you, you can go to the cato.org website and find my piece on the national popular vote, my criticism of the. i want to say a few things this point about. is what i would like to recall the sort of origins of the electoral college as a way of selecting the president. you may recall that the united states is not a unified or centralized republic but it was from the beginning and attempt to have a federal republic which included both a national government with separation of powers, but also a limiting effort at limiting power that

included the states. so the states had a big role to play and they had some of the popular sovereignty. they have power from the people, to. now that follow through and a lot of ways in our government, and one would it follow through was in the way of selecting the president. the way the electoral college, electoral votes are determined by each state getting too for being a state, and then according to the house representation. so the principals are really population on the one hand, plus being a state and being a state is a federalist idea. towards the end of his life the father of the constitution, james madison, said when we first came up with this i had my doubts about the electoral college. it's a mixed system of representation. but as it is worked out i think aniston pretty well and i think it's good that we have both state and a population principle. now, in the united states we have been through a laundry the last 60, 70 years in which we

diminished the role of the states in a lot of ways. and the national government has centralized and become more important. it seems to me that -- we have gone too far in the direction towards national government, more centralizing power. and here we see another effort, not the most important perhaps but indeed this is an effort to create the election of the president by a national electorate, and to, in fact, get rid of the role the states play in the election of the president. because, in fact, even though interstate compact would cast their ballots, states was to cast the ballot, they would not actually any control over the ballots. the actual determination of the president would not be made by the states but would rather be made by who won the national popular vote. so, in fact, you'd be getting rid of the state role in this, in the election of the president, another step away

from a sort of balanced federalism toward decentralized national government. but let me make another point about this that, in fact, he seems to me that some states have a particular complaint, and perhaps have the states have a particular complaint about the national popular vote undertaking. when you think about it, what's being proposed here is the group, the states that sign on to the interstate compact get to do not one thing but two things. the one thing that is explicitly proposed is those who hold are in the interstate compact will get to elect the president through the electoral votes, with reference to the national popular vote. so they elect the president. but when you think about it for a minute it's also true what they get to decide, the majority of states with a majority of electoral votes, is how the president will be elected. not just who will be president but how the president will be elected.

now, how the president will be elected, it is not a matter of anyone the election or majority rule. it's a constitutional matter, right? the rules about how we go about our government, how officials are elected, how members of congress are elected, and ultimately how the president would be elected our constitutional matters. they are not, in that sense if you look at article five, the and in the process of the constitution is set out there. and it requires two-thirds of congress, and three quarters of the states. so essentially what is happening here in the national popular vote is half of the states, the majority of electoral votes, are getting to decide a constitutional matter how the president will be elected. and the other half, or close to the other half of the states, close to half of the electoral votes, are simply excluded from that question. they will have no say.

and, in fact, at least half of them, that is 25% to get to the three quarters of the state, should have been asked to consent to this move about how the president will be elected. so it seems to me that at least the other half of the states that are not in the compact have a real complaint here which they have been excluded from what essentially is a constitutional matter of how the presidents elected in two other quick points. one of the major -- >> need you to wrap up. >> one of the major points is the states sometimes ignored by candidate. in fact, there's been one study that is look at direct election of the president, and has looked backwards and forwards about how people who have voted and how they will vote. and concluded that 40% of the states would give more attention from presidential candidates, 40% would get less attention from presidential candidates come and 20% would be about the same.

so, in fact, there's no reason to think from the study we have of this the direct election would, in fact, lead to a majority of the states getting more attention from presidential candidates. and, finally, on the question of every vote being equal, remember that is a principle for the house of representatives in the united states. but it is not the american principle. the senate itself is not elected on the basis of equally weighted votes. and neither now is the president. so the question is, we are moving -- we should not move and change the presidency with the notion that every vote being equal is the only principle we have in the senate a waiting that favors the state because of federalism. and this is a move away from that. >> thank you. i have a question for senator council. you have run campaigns. he had served in the congress. the argument has been made by those opposed to this multistate contact that the adoption of the

popular vote simply shifts focus to large city. i guess urban centric view, and the rural areas are much smaller to midsize towns will cease to have the importance that they presently have in the electoral process. what do you think about that? you have been there, done that. >> no, i don't think that that's true at all. one of the common responses to this is that it will give the large cities all the power and take away from, take away from the smaller states. what needs to be kept in mind, and not, as we go along, i hope i can talk about this as a republican, as a conservative, as someone who believes that what we're talking about here though is in the middle of a very partisan process, which i'm very much a part of, that we can talk about this as something that i believe is nonpartisan because i don't think there's

political events one way or the other, and i can talk about how i came to this opinion, that i had some of the knee-jerk reactions that a lot of people have when this was first, idea was first presented to me. but in looking at it, i came to a totally different conclusion. this is not centralization. this is not taking away anything from states' rights. this is not unconstitutional. we can talk about all of those, all of those things. but what the smaller states need to realize is that it doesn't matter how many electoral votes they have, and the electoral college does present every state with two votes and they get a weighted advantage, smaller states do because of that. but it doesn't matter whether you're five, 10 or 20 electoral votes if you're a smaller state, theoretically it wouldn't. if you're a smaller state, and you're not a battleground state,

nobody is going to pay any attention to you. now, i'm not saying that they don't, you know, put their airplane down like some of us do when we are camping in the states. they would've into every county and all of that. but in terms of, tom mentioned, in terms of the attention, the resources, the money spent, the organizational efforts, and more importantly to me, after the person has been elected, and is running for reelection, the policy decisions that are made with regard to these states. we had steel imports and steel tariffs by a president who is a free trader. and we can see what's going on that in the obama administration. how many, practically living in ohio and new hampshire. i mean, ohio and pennsylvania. look at some of the policies that are coming out there,

because they are the handful of battleground states. if you're a smaller state, it doesn't make any difference how many electoral votes you have. e.g. said it diminishes your power, your power to do what? you're not having any influence, because, because your vote is taking for granted. in this country, a lot of statements are made, but fortunately the answer to them are based on history and reality and things happen in elections and statistics. ..

because if you're a target state you might not be tomorrow and under our system if things are not working out fairly you can change it as you go along without having to change the constitution. it is -- with a you are a big state or a small state it doesn't make any difference under the current system unless you are a target state. we have gotten into the position and the president has started running advertisements in those target states. say you are not terribly hurt if you don't get advertisement in your area but that has policy

implications and fairness implications. i simply -- we have seen 2000, the john kerry situation. change of 60,000 votes could have elected john kerry president. a have back in my room a chart that has been worked up that has a very plausible, very plausible scenario where president obama loses the popular vote but is elected president of the united states by targeting those handful of votes, targeting those big cities, targeting of a billion dollars he plans to run, resources in order to cobble together an electoral college victory. let's don't look and this thing as a partisan thing. as a centralization. when your diffusing power and you can say you are taking power

out of the hands of the electors in the states and in my home state of tennessee they are not even on the ballot. very relevant. founding fathers didn't unanimously do anything. the way they set it up with a compromise, the side what they're going to do about this. the state's -- state legislature could take it away from you as a citizen altogether if they wanted to and it would still be constitutional and certainly saying as a country that we are going to take the power out of the hands of the intermediaries, the unknown intermediaries who back in the olden days were expected to know the candidates and how to cast their votes and use their own judgment and give

it to the people, i don't see the conservatism -- >> roger wants to respond. >> you are making some accusations that just not right. this is the national popular vote compact. it is a solution to a problem we don't have and will lead to new problems. we will have a non elected bureaucrats who make decisions on who won the majority vote. you are going to have the balance of power shifting from all states to just large metropolitan areas. the sixth largest areas have 20% of the total population so you talk about flyby for flyover states you have candidates going to the largest metropolitan areas and spending their money in those areas and promoting and

completely ignore small states and small areas. i don't agree at all. >> los angeles cannot even control the outcome of california at elections much less the elections -- we have somebody from california here. >> honestly, senator thompson and i both won elections. bio is like my district, my largest urban area in my district, city of riverside. 40% of the vote in my district are always lost riverside. of all is lost riverside. a won might election because san diego county voted for the 86%. in temecula they voted for me 70%. that is how you win elections. by piecing together coalitions in various areas. today the way they put together

the coalition's is they go to miami dade county or cuyahoga county in ohio and floridian and they forget riverside county and all the counties in wyoming and delaware and everywhere except florida and ohio and wisconsin and piece together the of vote that way but the reality of an election quite frankly is such that when you count the votes on a popular vote you have to go to every voter and talk to every voter. when you do votes by region you go to the pieces of the regions that determine the outcome and the bottom line is the compact says instead of worrying about prices in wisconsin and steel tariffs in pennsylvania and every child left behind in october and the medicare part b in florida you want to campaign to get votes in california

campaign on illegal immigration. in arizona campaign and illegal immigration. get those out of wyoming campaign on protecting the resource industries in those states. if you want to protect mining in wisconsin or wyoming nobody cares because wyoming is not determinative. this will make wyoming voters more important. farming in oklahoma, if they need the votes out of oklahoma they don't care. the national popular vote compact out of those states. >> if i may say, it is not true. you want to know how much influence your state has, very easy. under the collective or college system take the number of votes your state has and compare it to the national total. if you have three a la dorr college votes, three out of the

total number, if you want to know what your influence is going to be under the national popular vote plan, take your population and compare to the national population. john did that and was able to show 29 states would lose influence if you compare those two numbers. very quantitative analysis. >> with all due respect and i'm in this with all due respect that is not the reality of an election. san diego county and my district was 12% of my vote. 12% of my vote. they voted for me 86% of that 12% voted for me. that was a determination whether or not i would with the election with 12% of high population voting 86% for me. that means to be other part of the district which was 40% of my population if it was 55-45 which

is what it was that 86% and starve% voted for me, in the riverside county, that is -- don't count by saying 20 voters over it here, 10 voters over here. don't care about how many voters but the percentage of the voters vote for you and that is how national popular vote would be put together. if 70% of the voters in oklahoma vote for the republicans then they're going to pay attention to what is going on. republican candidate will pay attention to oklahoma because they want to move that 70% to 75% so they can overcome the 55-45 in new york and los angeles and you start piecing it together by counted those percentages and how they vote for you. you can't compare a percentage of voters in urban -- you need to look specifically at how each of those voting trends in

specific areas and the candidates will focus on how they do it and campaign and maximize the number of votes where they are strongest. [talking over each other] >> we're having a spirited debate here but i would like to move on and catch one or two more topics stopping when we run out of time because i have no idea when we are supposed to end. election fraud. what about the relative merits or demerits of the new multi compact system in terms of control or limiting the damage of election fraud as opposed -- i will start with you. >> i would like to talk about the election fraud issue. let's assume we have a presidential election were candidates are sitting on 2500 electoral votes. they need another 20 electoral votes to win and there's a state out there that has 20 alert durrell votes.

fa want to defraud election the easiest and only way you can do it is to go into one small geographic area that has a disproportionate impact on the election and in this case it would be one of the larger states or medium-size states and you would try to create fraud within that local state election. to do fraud and a national basis is ridiculous because i don't know when you have enough information to start your fraud. secondly it is so much easier to conduct the fraud in a very small geographic area. when you have 1 thirty-five million votes how do you fraud the total amount? when you only have a couple thousand or ten thousand or twenty thousand votes in a small geographic area in our country is much easier to do that. this is a much stronger

improvement in the election system as far as voter fraud is concerned. >> that is not the case. the easiest place to commit fraud in the united states is one party geographic area, 1-party state because the other party isn't there to observe what is happening and report on it. you might be able to steal enough votes in a big city machine and may be throw a left for college votes in that state but it is not that often in our history where the collector or college votes of one state makes the difference in the national election. in a state that is a 1-party state you know that even though the state will go for the candidate you want every vote you throw into the ballot box to change the national results you are going to do it. you say you can't do it? i wrote a case study about the

voter fraud. the largest voter fraud prosecution ever conducted by the department of justice in the 1980s in chicago. let's remember that there was a 500,000 vote difference in the 2,000 election. the federal grand jury that investigated that case and the u.s. attorney at the time estimated there has been 100,000 bogus votes cast in the ballot box in chicago in that election. that is already one fifth what it would have taken to make a difference in the 2000 election. that is not something that hopefully happens often in american elections but this would provide the incentive for more of that happen. >> the idea here is, the argument is can you pull off --

change the outcome of presidential elections or 10,000 fraudulent votes in madison, wisconsin or 5,000 fraudulent votes in colorado account the, cleveland or 20,000 fraudulent votes in miami dade. which is easier to pull off and change the outcome of a presidential election? 20,000 votes in miami dade -- in 2000, 3,000 fraudulent votes would have changed the outcome of the presidential election. 10,000 votes in madison, wisconsin. 10,000 or 15,000 votes in cleveland, of ohio can change the outcome of a presidential election. if you want to pull off fraudulent vote on a national election you have to get 800,000 votes to change it. it also assumes those who are committing fraud are maximizing the amount of fraud they are

doing. those committing fraud in the big urban machines have more of an interest in electing city careful and school boards today. . >> if they have incentive to take over the, is that we haven't seen in our history. we have over 200 years of history that has worked. we have a system that has worked. if the system needs to be changed why don't we do make constitutional change? while we doing something that 12 states put together a compact like this and who will run the compact? who will be in charge? bureaucrats? who is going to assign these bureaucrats? what do we have to do?

it is very worrying. we passed a resolution with 100 people as co-sponsors. without a dissenting votes we feel like this is something we shouldn't do and something needs to look very hard at. i don't agree with your premise. >> do you have a comment? >> richard nixon didn't think closest worked well in 1960 when mayor daley allegedly manipulated enough votes in chicago to give the election to john f. kennedy. a simple question whether or not it is easy. you will have fraud anywhere you go. whether it is easier to throw an election by a few votes and swing states that could go either way to affect all of the electors of that state or an

entire nation of 1 thirty five million votes. that answers itself. a lot of fright and generalities break it down, it is not there. i will leave the experts. i looked at it and i am of the firm conclusion that there is no inherent advantage with either party. here is where i come from as someone who is interested in our system and always has been. chairman of the governmental affairs committee spent a lot of time thinking about stuff like this. i don't think with all the challenges we are a lot more trouble than people think we are. i think we are going to need more substantial change than most people think.

i think we are going to have to have a change of thinking among the american people. not just leadership. about what we're doing in this country and what we're going to have to do to keep like doing every other great civilization has ever done in the history of the world and going down the other side. we are at a chipping point. we have to have strong leadership and we have to have leaders and presidents with credibility to do the things that need to be done. i think we are hamstringing ourselves when we put somebody in the oval office nowadays or in the future which somebody else got more votes. i am telling you it almost happened with john kerry from republican friends. it could very well happen with barack obama. but it doesn't matter. happened with george w. bush too. a lot of the animosity, plot of the difficulty, a lot of the

anger i have never seen before in politics that came from the bush a administration and -- it came from that election and next time it would be worse and next time it would be even worse than that. as we get into harder times and get more angry and people get more upset putting in somebody in the white house because some state legislator doesn't want to give up the power to select and collect or that means nothing versus having someone who won most of the votes fair and square. that is of concern to me. >> let me get a response. >> i want to make the point that hasn't been touched on and should be in people's minds as the legislatures decide this issue. a lot of people think along the

discussion we had earlier that basically the electoral college is a scam or something that benefits small states because if you didn't change out of the they would lose whatever influence they have and be worse situation and it doesn't benefit larger population states but that is not true. this issue has been studied by kato.org. big states are more likely to be a battleground states. and more likely to make the decision about presidential decision and that is something big state legislators have to consider. the other thing to consider is we are talking about things that happened in the last three four years. if this decision is made as far as we can tell it is forever. it is going to be a century from now or 50 years. in the course of that time we are acting as if the only people

that are battleground states of the ones that are now. over the course of those years other states. there have been changes in the past. at the end of the day the real question of have doubts about this is this change in the benefit or for the benefit of a majority of the state's let alone the three border the need for change about the way of electing a president? the lipitor college is politically stable for the reasons it serves the benefit of both big and small states. >> let me throw a question out. let's assume multistate compacts the chiefs the requisite 270 a lot more votes. that is enough in the bill or bills that when you achieve enough states total 270 or more, i don't know if this is the right term. it becomes a law or the practice of how doctors are appointed.

this congress needs to pass legislation to enshrine us into the law. would you need a constitutional amendment? >> you don't need a constitutional amendment but article 1 section 10 says you need cats congressional approval when it becomes effective. when approved by in a state the compact will go to congress who will vote up or down on whether or not it has been approved according to article 1 section 10. that is the bottom line. don't do it ahead of time. noaa compaq is approved by congress before it is effective. it is approved by congress after it becomes effective and has the same impact. >> that is interesting to hear because this is being pushed by national popular voting. al gore, bill clinton elector. they have taken the position in the past that this compact does

not need congressional approval. that is not what they have said. they have said states that do this without having to comply with that particular position that is simply not the case. this is basically a virtual constitutional amendment and it would force states that haven't approved it into the system. one other quick thing. roger mentioned earlier. when he said who is going to administer this? there isn't anybody to administer this. you know what the compact says? wants the state approves it there's a certain period of time that they can't pull out. that is not enforceable. what happens if a particular state at the election or before the election realizes this close election they could make the difference in the election and

they decide to pull out, violating the compact and throwing a result of the presidential election into question and complete disarray. , are you going to resolve that particular issue with this not administered compact. >> go ahead briefly. >> the good news is the supreme court decided all those issues. they have been resolved. the compaq itself is enforceable and that provision is enforceable because the supreme court has resolved that issue. you can't change the rules after it they have been set. that is the essence of bush versus gore. >> for some reason going back many years to my high school civics class, i recollect that in the current system there's no known enforceable law at the federal level requiring and electorates to vote as he pledged to vote and there have

been some minor instances. the term rhode collector, that is a possibility and i think in -- one of the electors for al gore refused to cast a vote. she did not vote contrary to her pledge but she did not vote. that seems to me hugely important issue in a close election potentially and my first question is how is that being handled? is that part of the problem? and your thoughts? >> that is not a problem. there are only 2 instances in the history of the united states that that has happened. that is not a problem. something that is completely insignificant and has virtually never happened. >> if i didn't vote as pledged what could they do to me? with my vote counts contrary to my pledge? >> if you were elected as an elector you have the ability to

vote as you see fit but if you are committed to vote or pledged to vote for someone you have your honor and pledge to vote. we have 200 years of history where this hasn't happened. you have to look at a stable system and say we have something that works. why would we change it for something we don't know what we are getting? >> it is not a problem. is a problem? with your multistate compact -- solve the problem? >> relative to the electoral or toll process? >> the individual electors and irrigation. >> just a couple times in history we don't see this as a problem either way. >> seems to me very unlikely if it was a crucial vote that the enormous pressure, the ones we talked about when somebody voted for lloyd bentsen at the top of the ticket which was michael

dukakis. if there were crucial -- the pressure would be so enormous that this one person could vote a way they weren't supposed to. i don't think to be fair they emphasized overcoming the elector as a major argument for the popular vote. >> not something we need to worry about either way. >> and would like to comment on a couple statements that were made that were misleading. states that joined the compact and put the process in place on a electing the president of the united states. the people of the 50 states of the united states of america, all of them are electing the president of the united states. not just the states that signed the compact although they are the majority of life for all votes. i don't know how a candidate for a political office could stand up in front of their constituents and say we don't

have a problem. candidate with the least number of votes can win and it happened four times in history and that is not a problem? the fact the we have 36 of 38 states that totally ignored in the election process and that is not a problem? the fact that states -- voters in california don't have the same status as voters in ohio is not a problem? i think it is a serious problem. we have the ability to change it. we have the public will to change it. what we afraid of? change? we can't be afraid of change today. let me tell you three things that happened in this country in the last three years. occupy wall street, the ipad -- there's one other one. and the tea party. those three things. talk about change. we're talking like this will --

has been a great system for 200 years. four candidates won the presidency with the least number of votes. [talking over each other] >> mr. golisano is not speaking correct when he said least number of votes. he is not asserting the third or fourth party candidate wins the election. what he is asserting the people who -- person who finishes second as in the case of george w. bush won. it is less than the person who has the plurality. the second thing is you are concerned -- to come back to what i said you are also saying there's a big problem because wyoming and west virginia and so on, delaware have two senators and california as two senators. that is a huge difference in the vote. the argument you are making is

an argument against the united states senate as well. it is not the case that it is accepted. >> i don't remember making that argument at all. >> the implication is if you are against one person one vote, that is not the principle that is underlying -- >> we're not talking about a congress. we're talking about presidency. >> my point is the constitution allows for other principals for waiting votes than one person one vote. >> one of the many anti majority materials. i don't want to default into a historical argument but i want to point out they keep saying there have been four candidate in american history who became president even though they didn't get the most popular vote. in 1824 john quincy adams, and rejection, that is a false analogy because collectors were not popularly elected. they were appointed by

legislature. we don't know who won the popular vote. two other elections. 1876, 1888. in 1876 there was rampant footer fraud and suppression of the black vote in southern states. we don't actually know who -- who really won the popular vote. in 1888 grover cleveland who was the national popular vote winner lost to the republican benjamin harrison. benjamin harrison carried plenty of the 25 states and once again because of the implementation of jim-crow, the black vote was suppressed in the southern states where grover cleveland won. there was only 100,000 votes difference between the two end the black vote had not been suppressed, in my mind it is pretty sure that the person elected president, rutherford b.

hayes would have been elected president. let's get to the 2000 election. there were 1 hundred five million votes cast in the united states. margin of difference, popular vote was a little over 500,000 votes. i can tell you any expert on voting equipment can tell you and i happen to be an election official in georgia in the 2000 election when they were using punch card equipment and i'm an election official in virginia today. that 500,000 the difference is within the margin of error of the voting equipment that was in use in the united states. what does that mean? at a different recount had been done that -- nationally, it might have changed national popular vote difference. so this constant reference to the election -- four elections is really an inaccurate

reflection. it doesn't reflect historical -- historically what happened in those elections. >> 547 votes in florida in 2000 make it much more exact? >> of course not. that determined the presidency of the united states. >> there have been six additional instances where the change of 1% to vote in a couple states had another situation. >> since 1880 we have had elections close enough that if the national popular vote plan had been in place we would have had to have done six national recounts, one out of every six election which brings me to the point that if we have a national popular vote plan we will have more recounts in our presidential elections, not less. >> we are about out of time. we might have one more question

or comment. let me ask both sides is there anything this debate has been nothing if not spirited. i think you very much. is there any topic involved in this thing that we haven't hatched out? >> i wonder what president you are upset about that got elected that you want to do this. >> the issue of constitutionality is pretty clear that this is not unconstitutional. there is no provision they can point to that is a unconstitutional. under article 3 section 2, the article 2 section 1, the congress gave the states the right to select their electors in any way they wanted to. the supreme court upheld that time and time again. individuals in the state don't

have a constitutional right to vote for president. that authority with the states is those strong. in times past the legislature in the beginning some of them said we will do it. with the legislature will decide how to choose these electors. then they moved toward a winner-take-all. in the meantime they broke it down. some states by congressional district and will vote that way. states got total authority in this regard and the only relevant constitutional provision that deals with presidential elections. constitution is much more specific what states can or cannot do and the united states senators are elected by majority vote so they have the authority. what this compact does is says

to the state for the benefit of the country, we think it is passed we have a majority vote in this country to elect our president. the way we do you fellows, if you don't want to join the compact you don't have to. you still have total authority. those advocates of states' rights need to keep that in mind. we are asking the states to consider it and say we will exercise our total of 40 how to select these electors by saying we will select these electors according to get the most votes in the country for president. so that is what this -- not unconstitutional, doesn't require a constitutional

amendment. it is a voluntary interstate -- doesn't have anything to do with states rights, doesn't centralized anything. that is the part that i would like to -- >> your response and we will close. >> we have gone through all of this and had a spirited debate. i want to say something. i had debate about this many times in the last two or three years. always been struck that there are a lot of differences here and i am not persuaded this is a good idea or something we ought to be doing but what i do think it's a good idea that people on the other side of the issue saw fit to produce the book they produced and do all the research and make this effort and in doing so what they have done is brought this issue and at the end of the they -- i hope they will attain the status quo but have a better idea about what the presidential system is and

what the constitutional system is and what it is a good thing. in that regard it is a good thing, people behind this were willing to fund and follow up on these issues and we had these spirited debate. it is a good thing. i am glad to debate people for the national popular vote and we will see how it goes forward. >> time to close. i want to thank our panelists. it has been a great debate and educational for me. thank you for being here. i appreciate your participation. [applause] ♪ >> in a few moments former white house environmental adviser van jones on the future of health care. the senate is in session at 9:30 eastern to debate resolution of

disapproval of the president's latest request increasing the debt limit by $1 trillion. several live events to tell you about today. director of national intelligence james clapper talk about information sharing among intelligence agencies on c-span3 at 9:30 eastern. a un c-span at 10:00 the senate budget committee looks at the outlook for the u.s. and world economy. defense secretary leon panetta and general martin dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs will release details of the obama administration's defense budget for the next fiscal year. that is also on c-span at 2:00 eastern. now former white house environmental adviser van jones on a role of government in providing health care and other services. he spoke for a little more than

an hour at the annual dove conference of families usa. [applause] >> i will take the applause as a positive meeting. i have the enormous pleasure of introducing van jones, the co-founder of the rebuild the dream movement. you will hear him emphasizing good jobs and economic opportunities. but his work is much broader than that. being a very busy man he is involved in many good things. among others co-founded the center for human rights, color of change, green for all, time

magazine in 2009 named as one of the hundred most important people in the world. anyway, we as health-care advocates are of course part of the broader progressive movement. as you will discover, that broader progressive moment could not have a more elegant voice than van jones. wet me just add a couple personal comments. i want to tell you that the broad agenda of which we are a part is something that all of us need to be even more conscious of these days than before.

van jones's umbrella covers everything from the occupy movement to all the progressive causes that many of us are involved in. i am personally proud to be and have been for some time one of van jones's supporters. you are about to see why. [applause] >> they made it dark in here. in one year, one year from now we will be back in this room or

a room like this. we will be in one of two scenarios. either the country will have affirmed its wisdom in moving forward trying to get two more doctors to baby, building on the success of people in this room and across this country, or we will have decided to take a step backward. whether or not the heroism that was shown by this white house and the people in this room is honored is largely in our hands. what i want to talk about is not the specifics of health-care. you know more about that than a i do but the context with which the struggle is taking place.

it cannot be the case that people are this upset that we might get some more doctors debates. that can't be the real issue. it can't be the case that people are this upset, the opponents of this progressive movement are this upset because a few more americans might be able to see a doctor when they're sick. something else is going on. what is at stake is what is the character of our country? who are we as americans? what does it mean to be an american? that is going to be the sub text or context of every single attack ad, every single debate, every single bar room discussion, every discussion in the laundromat will be fundamentally about who we are going to be as a country. this is a key issue for us.

i get my mind wrapped around it by things about my father. my father was born in abject poverty. he was born in memphis, tennessee in a community called goerge mound which was one of the biggest ghettos in the country before harlem overtook it. he was born in poverty. parents were together but his father died when he was 5 years old. in part because he couldn't get good health care. one of the last things my grandfather said to my father at 5 years old was i am not going to be here and i want you to take care of your little brothers and your little sister. you are the man of the house now. my father was 5 years old. as a child growing up years later when we go back to memphis, they would say oh

willie, how are you doing? to me this made perfectly good sense. at that point you alone. probably 35. made perfectly good sense to me that they would call my old dad old willie. i didn't understand them calling him that when he was 6. because he would walk around at 6 years old trying to be the father, trying to be the man of the house. they started calling him old willie when he was 6. it helps me understand what i found out later on why he joined the military. and got out of orange mound. and came back and put himself through college. and put his little brother through college and put a cousin through college and put me and

my sister through college. nobody had to tell people in the community about bootstrapping. we are the original boot strappers. didn't have to give us a lecture what it means to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. my father told me when i got involved in activism, son, nobody can give you anything. that is going to stop you from being poor. nobody can give you anything that will stop you from being -- i admire what you're doing but keep this in mind. if you get somebody some money to stop from being broke they're still for in their mind and heart and spirit and will be broke again in a week. every individual has to climb the ladder of poverty themselves by their own efforts. that is the individual's responsibility. i did that. my father didn't stop there.

he said and society has a responsibility too. society has to make sure there is a ladder for that child to climb. a ladder for the child to climb. that is where we have been failing as a country. we have been failing the new generation. the ladder of opportunity has fallen over. been kicked over by people who have a financial stake in rigging the rules and rigging the game so they get more money at the top and leave more people at the bottom. the rungs between the latter are farther and farther spread out. that is what is wrong with america. they are going to tell us that we just want equality and redistribution of wealth. there is nobody in here trying to move to north korea.

that is not anybody's conversation. we are saying we want people to be able to work hard and get somewhere. not work harder and harder to fall further and further behind. we were old fashioned in that way. old-fashioned values that when you work hard you should be able to get some place. that we should be able to get up in the morning and go to the dignity of a workplace, be respected on the job. come back home with a paycheck. look the child in the r and know you can give the child a better life if you work hard and play by the rules. the problem now is you have people working artist and playing by the rules, falling further behind and can't succeed. yet we have people who are breaking the rules, have their foot propped up on the desk

sometimes, who have computers doing a thousand trades a second on wall street but no matter how wavy they are and how many rules they break they can't fail. they have been declared too big to fail. that is what is wrong. old-fashioned american values, the only thing too big to fail in america are minimum working class families. middle and working-class communities. our neighborhoods are too big to fail. our children's dream the too big to fail. the american dream is too big to fail. we have to do what we can to make sure it does not fail. to me that makes us the patriots. the real patriots. the country is in this level of crisis and change, every issue is a surface discussion of a paper issue about the character and identity of the people

themselves. who are we as americans? i think this tumult over our attempt to make sure one of the low rungs on the latter is you can see a doctor. that shouldn't be the top of the latter. you shouldn't have to be healthy to get to the top of the ladder to see a doctor. if you get sick you should be able to see a doctor. that should be a low round on the latter. the struggle we are going through now has to do with a certain section of people in the country telling us that that is the european idea, a foreign idea, an alien idea, a socialist idea, a bizarre idea. they always point to -- they abuse the constitution to justify their agenda. we should take upon it. let me suggest to you that we have something to say about our

issues in this country. we know a little bit about this country, some of us. my family has been here for unknowable generations. and no little something about this country. many of view have marked, on in neighborhoods with some of the folks who talk about his children should be made into janitor's don't even go into neighborhoods that you work in. we might know something about americans. many of you have put a lot of your life on hold trying to fight for liberty and justice for all in communities and you know very little about -- we know little about america. we know about -- might have something to say about that. might be helpful for us to say something about that what we talk about our issues because it america is not just our founding reality.

they love to talk about the founders. let's talk about america's founding. america was born in the contradiction. we have a founding reality that is unfortunately sunni quote. ugly and unequal. that is beyond dispute. the founders themselves will admit to. jefferson said i'd tremble when i think god is just thinking about things like enslavement or birthmarks on the republic, thinking about ways they have fallen short on their higher ideals. i tremble for my country. even the founders had some heart break about the founding realities. thank goodness america is not just a founding reality. america is also our founding dream. the founding dream, we hold these truths to be self-evident.

that all are created equal, we have a right from the creator, a right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that is the founding dream. who are we as americans? americans are a unique people on this earth. every color, every class, every gender, every sexually. rainbow people. an imperfect people who have struggled generation after generation to drag that unequal founding reality closer and closer and closer to the beauty of the dream. that is who we are. that is what we do. that makes us american. each generation looks at the reality and looks at the dream and tries to figure out what can we do to take another step closer to the dream? the beauty of the last century

is the dream builder, the dream defender won the last century. we won the last century. you don't believe me, rewind the tape to 1900. one to go back there? anybody in this room want to go back to 1900? think about 1900. women in a secondary status didn't have the right to vote. their rights were in the garbage can. people of color, not even considered human beings. our rights were in the garbage can. the environment was being trashed from coast to coast. trees being chopped down. pollution into the air and water with no regulation. mother nature was in the garbage can. workers never had a day off. no weekend, not one paid federal holiday. there was no middle class at

all. people working hard and the people who own everything. and children were working in factories. working families and children. in the garbage can. lesbians and gays didn't even have a name. they didn't even get a garbage can. didn't even get a garbage can. that is 1900. there were some people who looked around and they said this looks great. this is wonderful. let's conserve this. let's conserve this. [applause] thank goodness there were some

deeper patriots who looked around and they were appalled. and they were against and they said we will never be a perfect nation but we can be a more perfect union than this. and they marched and they rallied and did sit ins and strikes. they voted. some were beaten. some were jailed. some were murdered. their blood is in the ground in this country so that by the year 2000 everything that they said that america should be, we were many steps closer to. this thing we call the american way in 1900 wasn't people trying

to conserve 1900. it was the people who said let's progress. let's progress beyond 1900. that gave us a middle class. the first ever. the greatest american invention. a big middle-class. ordinary people could build things and buy things and pass out of poverty into the middle class. with all kinds of measures to get us closer to starting point equality. absolute equality on everybody -- i don't know what they think. we want. but starting point equality which requires real work as a nation to make sure everybody can get to a kindergarten and everybody can be a doctor and we can have clean air and clean water.

these things are about making sure every american can pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. think about that. what do we call that great century? when the dream -- won the day. recall that century the american century. that is our century. that is the century we won and our ideas prevailed. it made us the envy and hope and beacon for the whole world. warts and all. because the dream builders and dream defenders were willing to stand together. there is a lot of cheap patriotism that gets thrown around here. we let them get away with it. we let them set this up as

patriots versus progressives. this is shocking to me. my father was a deep patriot. sera your parents and so are we. it is very easy to have an ideology that is all about liberty. liberty, even turned it into a philosophy. libertarian as some. i have to tell you you don't have to sell me on liberty. i am for it. you had me at a low on that. you don't have to have a whole political party of all this. but i have two children. hy try to teach them just one thing. when they learned the pledge of allegiance they don't stop with

the word liberty. they say liberty and justice for all. liberty and justice for all. not liberty and justice for all except they people. not liberty and justice for all except for the immigrants. liberty and justice for all. why is that so fundamental? somebody can tell you i've got a little education. my parents were tough on me. had to read those books. it turns out american jaw use cannot be reduced to a single principle. anybody who does the inevitably runs the country offer rail. there's a reason we say liberty

and justice. if you only care about justice and you care nothing for individual rights you care nothing for individual liberty you are driving your country in the direction of totalitarianism, government tierney with no concern for the individual. we reject that in this country as well we should. if you only care about liberty, individual economic liberty and have no concern over justice, you drive the country into another form of tyranny and domination. corporate tierney and domination. our liberties are under threat in this country much more from big money trying to by the government and the -- and government itself. i love my friends in the tea party. they say our liberties are under threat. i say you just figured that one

out? come to my neighborhood. oh really? but they get the puppet master relationship wrong. they say the government is trying to take over the economy. obama is a socialist. the government is trying to take over the economy. o confrere. the corporation the trying to take over the government. that is the danger. corp. are trying to take over the government. that is the real threat to our liberty. if you try to reduce all the american principles to one single principle, you actually disable the people from defending themselves against the real threat which right now is

global corporations masquerading as american corporations that take, take, take from this country and don't want to give anything back. never seen anything like corporate america. they want to the american corporations when it is convenient for them. when it is time for them to and force the fine print on the contract they want to go to american courts. they don't pay for american courts. you pay for american courts. they have a conflict overseas with asia and intellectual property rights. than their american. when they want to hire some workers in the united states on rare occasion. they didn't train those workers. they didn't teach them algebra or how to tie their shoes. you did that. some oil conflict with forces in peril. they are americans when it is

time to drive their product down the road. they didn't pay for that road. you paid for that road. then they are americans. and you ask them to pay taxes or to hire an american worker or invest in their own country, surprise surprise. they want to put their taxes in other countries. time to open a factory and another country. you think about this. give me, but give nothing back. give me but give nothing back. sound familiar? corporate america would be the worst boyfriend ever. the worst boyfriend ever. right? we have seen this before.

am i wrong? asking the business community to pay america back in the form of taxes and fair wages is not redistribution of wealth, class warfare. that is return on investment. return on investment. [applause] if you're an american corporation you have the best shareholder in the world, the american people. we do everything we can to set you up to succeed. we have a court system, make sure you have a trained work force. stop paying taxes we continue to do a better job. we set you up to succeed and if you don't succeed you should pay taxes. but if you do succeed, you should be proud.

you should be proud. if you do well in america you should do well by america. that is how our grandparents worked. what should we have to beg you. why should we have to beg you to do well by a country that has done well by you? it is a cheap form of patriotism to let them off the hook and save the country is supposed to serve them but they're not supposed to help us. it is a cheap form of patriotism to say that the epa is a job killer. think about that. the epa. what does the epa do? think about this. i don't know if we can defend the epa. the economy is bad. excuse me.

the epa keeps americans from buying! i don't want to pull the values card here. lindsay piegza a has probably saved more american lives than the department of defense. think about this. the epa, you are mad at the epa? rules on mercury alone saves 1,000 american lives every single year. if you take out the epa don't call me a job killer. you are a kid killer. let's be honest. what will happen if we don't have an epa? mercury, led, poison. the epa is holding back poison

to keep americans alive. how many of my children do you want to kill? let me understand your math. what is your math? tell me my children you are willing to kill for a job. at some point we have to be able to say it is a cheap form of patriotism to have your children sing america the beautiful but do nothing to defend america's beauty against oil spills or the clear cutters. against a mountain top removers or people who want to dump poison into our water and skies and children. a cheap form of patriotism to saying america's beauty and still that beauty out for a dollar. there's something wrong with that version of patriotism. my problem is with -- not that they're too patriotic. in this country there is no such thing. my problem is they're not patriotic enough. that is my problem.

that is my problem. [applause] you think about the statue of liberty. so easy to go there. now it is going to be closing. it is not hard to get there and look at it. everybody loves to do that. bring the kids, the picture taking, statue in the back. we love that. such a patriot. i just wanted my children to see some of the greatness of

america. easy. cheap. zero in on that picture to the base of that statute. one of the words said give me your tired, give me your pour, give me your huddled masses who yearn to breathe free. how can you be so passionate about the symbol of american democracy and have contempt for the substance? you cannot be anti-immigrant and a patriot at the same time. those things don't go together. they don't go together. [applause] the color of the skin of a

newcomer may change. but our values don't. our values don't. we are americans. send us the folks you don't want and we will turn them into millionaires and artists and give them a chance to be an inspiration to be whole world. give us what you don't want. we will use their genius in side of a system to lift up the whole world. we have done it for centuries. this is the great challenge we have. 5 to stand up for deeper patriotism and speak in these terms. the danger that we are in is that you are heading into a century -- don't worry. you will win this century too. you have some new challenges. the health-care fight is so important. new challenges in this new

century. there is a scenario out there. a dangerous scenario. we have got to use this fight to get ready for it. we could be living in a country very soon that is more and more diverse. more racially diverse. more socially diverse. more culturally diverse. more religiously diverse. more diverse but less prosperous. you have a situation where you have more diversity but less and less prosperity. that is not a recipe usually for a common ground. it can be a recipe for battleground. we have to take this very seriously. we have opponents who will say i

finally agree with you. you said something that makes sense to me. you are right. what she would -- what we should do is kill the diversity. i am making stuff up. people actually think the worst thing that happened to america is we're getting too diverse. our diversity is a weakness rather than the source of our greatest strength. get rid of the immigrants. then everything would be perfect. but they are still patriots. or it is the muslims. they say a lot and we say god. or worse, they attack the lesbian and gay community which is just to me the most bizarre. i cannot get my head rapts