them in the eye, to thank them. but i would say, even more importantly, and i think our veterans would agree, they'd say, you know, i appreciate that , i appreciate that, but better yet, and indeed your duty, elected official, and every american, is to take the legacy that was gifted and handed to you at a heavy price and ensure that we pass it on to the next generation. so i implore, madam speaker, every american to get engaged in this noble fight for the future of our country, for our children and for our grandchildren. . >> president reagan said it this way, we did not -- freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction and did not

pass toit our children in the bloodstream and must be fought for and passed on for them to do the same. and one day in our sunset years, we will tell our children and children's children what it was like in america where men were free. madam speaker, indeed we will meet our obligation to the next generation of americans and may god watch over our veterans and our troops who stand watch tonight. and may god forever bless the united states of america. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from vigin islands, ms. christensen is recognized as the designee of the minority leader.

mrs. christensen: i thank our minority leader, ms. pelosi to have this special order hour once again. before i again my discussion, i want to take this opportunity to wish a very happy birthday to my daughter, corinna green and we celebrated one of my grandson's fifth birthday. i want to extend congratulations to the federal team that is now in place in the u.s. virgin islands. congratulations to our new district court judge, wilma a. lewis who joins the district court of the virgin islands. congratulate u.s. attorney william w. sharp who was sworn in this morning and chief marshal cheryl jay could bes.

we well -- jacobs and thank president obama and attorney general holder for their timely confirmation and let me thank all of those men and women who have served in our nation's armed forces and those who serve today for their courage and their sacrifice and i want to thank their families who serve and sacrifice along with them. we in the congressional black caucus and the entire congress looks forward in the not too distant future to honor the mumford marines with a congressional gold medal. but this evening, the congressional black caucus continues our focus on the need for jobs and reiterate the call for the leadership of this congress to bring legislation to the floor that would create jobs. tonight, we want to call our attention to the continuing

plight to the poor of this country and the budget and other battles have been fought on the floor of this house and the senate and what is hurting them if the supercommittee does not come to a balanced agreement that would reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion or more and i would say hopefully more. earlier this month, nine members of the house joined the fighting with -- fighting poverty with faith initiative and took the food stamp challenge. we agreed to live on the average food stamp allotment a week, $41.50 a week. there are over 48 million americans today who are food insecure. more than 16 million children live in households that are food insecure and we are the richest country in the world. millions face hunger in this country, a fact we should be ashamed of. these numbers are getting worse,

not just because of the recession but because the wealth in the past decade went to the top 10% in this country. their incomes really crashed and the gap between rich and poor got wider, a dangerous trend for a country struggling to maintain its leadership in the world, something that we should do everything in our power to maintain. for all of our 40 years of existence, the goal of the congressional black caucus has been to close the gap that leaves some community behind or leaves out all together. to close the job gap, the housing gap, health gap, education gap and all of the disparities that have been been persistent for some communities, not because those on the losing side didn't want them to change or didn't work for change, but because the opportunity, too

often, was just not there. colleagues, america is the land of opportunity. and all of us, not just the 43 members of the congressional black caucus but all 441 or really all 541 need to be working together to make sure that it is for all and not just for some. this country was founded on the principle that all men and women are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights not to be separated from us, in aileningable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. many times when we pass programs that should have helped they don't help communities. it goes to communities that are not prepared to compete or may not be priorities in the state. -- for the governors of those states who decide where those programs go. and that's why our assistant

leader and james clyburn and congressman rangel developed an initiative they have taken to the white house and republican and democratic leadership. under this initiative which seeks out the most chronicically distressed, funding would go to higher poverty levels with 30 or more years and may surprise everyone but 2/3 of all of the jurisdictions that would qualify for that 10% would -- are in republican districts. i think if it were under any other administration or proposed by swob someone on the other side of the aisle, it would have been passed long ago. all of those communities which are not all racial or ethnic minorities, somer but are being denied those inalien able rights. and that's not the country we

know and love. at our conference in september, we heard from researchers who reported on persistent poverty and its impact on health and quality of life in the communities that are chronicically distressed. their report tracks the concentrated poverty in u.s. metropolitan areas in a period of nearly 40 years. neighborhoods of poverty rates above 30% have been recognize dollars with few opportunities for employment and education, high levels of crime and meager participation. living in such neighborhoods over extended periods of time reduces the life chances of children, whether their families are poor or not. the report looked more deeply at a subset of urban neighborhoods that can be characterized as ghettos. and the report showed that the

nation continues to suffer from racially and economically divided cities undercutting efforts to reach important goals, important goals for our country, for health, for education, for employment and civic engagement. more specifically that report found concentrated poverty had risen substantially since 2011. one in 11 residents of american metropolitan areas or 22.3 million people now live in a neighborhood where 30% or more of their neighbors live in poverty. such neighborhoods suffer from private sector disinvestment, poor public services and schools and unacceptable levels of exposure to crime, natural hazards and pollution. the number of people in high poverty neighborhoods increased nearly five million, nearly five million people since 2000. 14.4 million residents, they

live in high poverty neighborhoods. the rise -- since 2000 is a significant setback. the number of people in high poverty neighborhoods stabilized in the 1990's and the concentrated rates fell fueling optimism that faith-based initiatives were reversing a crisis that had grown dire in the 1980's. today, it appears the improvement of the 1990's was atemporary resspite. the increase of americans living in high poverty neighborhoods tracks with the nation's poverty rates. between 2000 and 2009, the number of people in poverty grew by 10 million, from 33 million to 44 million, raising the poverty rate from 11.3% to 14.3% in 2009. today, it's over 15%. and we all have seen the pew

report which showed that white wealth is 20 times more than african american wealth and 18 times more than hispanic wealth and more african americans live in extreme poverty. that is a very bad prognosis if it continues for the economic health of our nation. also, everyone knows that i'm a family doctor by training, training that i received right here at george washington university school of medicine and howard university medical center. so the health of my fellow americans is very important to me. i have to point out that poverty is a sure prescription for poor health and for premature prevent tabble disbuilt and death. eliminating poverty alone would improve the health of millions. or, let me quote one of our surgeon generals, afront to the

genius of american medicine and ideals as was said by margaret heckler back in 1985 and continues to be today. the american dream has become a nightmare for too many in this country, including those who recently came in pursuit of it, our immigrant community. the rebuild american dream movement and occupy wall street protests are making it a good dream again, not just a dream but an opportunity to make it a reality. as quiet as it is kept, democrats have always been about keeping the american dream alive for everyone who lives and who comes to this country, for making opportunity available for all for solid education, good health, a decent job, a home in a safe neighborhood and a secure retirement. we have never lost sight or lost

faith in this. we continue to fight for it, despite the big money, special interests who think they will win out in the end, but they won't, because we are on the side of the american people and we will side with them and in the best interests of our country. before we went out on our break, one more break than we needed, congresswoman barbara lee introduced h.r. 3300, the half and 10 act of 2011 which proposes to cut poverty in half within the next 10 years. in 2008, the house concurrent resolution 198 unanimously passed congress and committed us to doing just that, cutting poverty in half. the new bill provides us with the framework for doing it and we need to honor the commitment we made in 2008 and passed the

bill h.r. 3300. the half in 10 act would establish a federal interagency working group. the working group will develop a national plan to reduce poverty in half in 10 years while working to eliminate extreme poverty that i talked about earlier, child poverty and the historic disparity in poverty rates in communities of color. the working group will improve how we collect data of those in poverty and make regular reports on their progress, so congress and the american people can better understand the impact of our policies and programs and make more informed decisions about how we as a people treat our most vulnerable. the working group will be charged with developing and implementing a national plan on poverty, with four distinct, but interrelated goals. one, to reduce the national poverty rate in half in 10 years. two, to eliminate extreme

poverty, income under 50% of poverty. three, to eliminate child poverty. and four, to eliminate the historic disparity in poverty rates in communities of color. . . so we can develop a comprehensive and far-reaching and sustainable plan. and i urge dish really want to thank congresswoman barbara lee, our former chair of the congressional black caucus, for her work on eliminating poverty, for her leadership of the out of poverty caucus and for introducing h.r. 3300. we have another bill that will soon be introduced by congresswoman again moore, which also speaks to poverty. she's preparing a bill that

would reform that and i think it has not worked as it was intended to. as we look at it it's created a permanent underclass. block grants are locked in at a 1994 level. many who move off of assistance after five years still don't have jobs and they don't have child care. the rise in food stamp usage shows that where those pushed off of assistance have gone. the average age of tan i have recipients is 7.8 years of age. 20% of children live in abject poverty in this country. it's damaged the social safety net that was meant to respond to the countercyclical nature of the economy when there's a recession. it's supposed to be that last help. so the bill is still being drafted but some of the things that it would do would -- too

would stipulate that the number one goal of tanif is child poverty reduction. it would stop the clock during a recession. it would guarantee child care for tanif-work-eligible recipients. it would lift all-time limits on work participation requirements and the 30% state cap on education and it would adjust the federal work participation requirements so that states could get credit when individuals with disabilities participate in work-related activities, even if the nature of those activities or the number of hours do not match the standard tanif requirements. those are just some of the things that we expect to have go into the bill. and again, in addition to h.r. 3300, when congresswoman again moore introduces her reform bill, we hope that all of our colleagues will support it. there's also an elephant in this

room and every room in congress and that's of course the deficit cutting proposal that the supercommittee is responsible for bringing forth in about nine days. actually it would be more than a proposal because we would have to vote on it as it is. just up or down, no amendments. we hear that there will more than likely, within those a nine days, be an agreement -- within those nine days, be an agreement, and if there's any hope for fair and balanced agreement it's because we know that the house members that the caucus -- the democratic caucus has placed on that committee, will work to ensure that it is and those are our assistant leader jim clyburn, vice chair of the caucus, becerra, and our budget chair, chris van hollen.

but, you know, we've said over and over again that this plan needs to include further extension of unemployment benefits. with something that has been demonstrated over and over again is a guaranteed stimulus for the recession that we're not yet out of. but it also of course provides a needed bring until we can get this congress to -- bridge until we can get this congress to create jobs again. it's been over 300 days and we still have yet to see the republican leadership produce and enact a jobs agenda for this country. something that we all know is so badly needed. and just to talk about where we are, in the third quarter of 2011, 31.8% of 14 million americans who are out of work have been so for more than a year. that amounts to 4.4 million people. older workers are more likely to remain out of work for a year or longer. 43% of unemployed workers older than 55 have been out of work

for at least a year. although those with more education are less likely to lose jobs, once unemployed, long-term joblessness is distributed across all educational levels, we keep hearing about those who might have a job saying, if you're jobless, don't apply. now, that just does not make any sense. unemployment cuts across every industry and occupation. more than 20% of unemployed workers in every industry have been out of work for a year or longer. and in mining, manufacturing, transportation, utilities, financial activities, the percentage of workers who have been jobless for a year or longer is over 40%. we cannot get out of this recession without jobs. so again we call on the leadership of this body to enact a jobs agenda. we, the democrats, have proposed and requested in the strongest way possible that the american jobs act be a part of the

supercommittee's report. it in itself, because of the tax and other revenue it would generate, is an important part of reducing our deficit. we also want other revenues to be a part of that a agreement. this is not in any way class warfare. the poor and the middle class have already given up much, have made major concessions and sacrifices. and in the interest of saving our country, they would likely do more, up to a point. but now it's time for everyone else to give. it's the patriotic thing to do. unless some or even all of the bush tax cuts which were meant only to be temporary and should have expired already, unless they are allowed to expire, the majority of the deficit will come out of programs that would help the middle class and the poor. the country i pledge allegiance to is a fair country. the congress has a sacred responsibility to keep it fair and with liberty and justice for all. if no agreement is reached, if

the house and senate fail to pass an agreement -- pass whatever agreement that is reached, mandatory across the board cuts will be imposed. and the president has already said he will prevent any attempt to stop the mandatory cuts from taking place and i hope that threat extends to mandatory dispense cuts because what we keep hear something that those defense cuts will just not ever happen. and if defense is spared, the mandatory discretionary cuts would further come out of programs that would help the poor and the middle class and would hurt them even more than some of the budget agreements we've already reached, some of the cuts that this congress has already made would hurt the poor and hurt jobs. and just in 2011 250 programs were cut, that probably eliminated about 370,000 jobs. those are just some of the things we've already lost.

almost 60,000 jobs lost from the spring budget cuts to federal government in three areas, with secondary impact on a wide array of businesses ranging from automobile producers to local restaurants and dry cleaning establishments. federal support for law enforcement, environmental cleanup of nuclear with a waste -- weapons production facilities and general services administrations, those are some of the cuts that have just wiped out jobs, at a time when we need to be creating them. so we need to make sure that we allow our economy to grow, we need to continue or begin to invest in education and health care and, yes, renewable energy and innovation of all kinds. the only way we can do this is with a big agreement, but one that includes far more revenue than the mere $300 billion that is now on the table. so we want balance and fairness

from the supercommittee. we want a jobs agenda enacted. we want to see the american jobs act be a part of it. we want to see the unemployment -- that unemployment is -- unemployment is -- the unemployment payments are continued and extended beyond where they are today. and we want to go further to make sure that poverty is reduced in our country. because, again, over 16 million children in this country are going hungry every day and living in poverty and that is something that any country worth its salt should never tolerate. i see that i'm joined by one of my colleagues, congressman sheila jackson lee, and if she would like to i'd like to yield her such time as she might consume.

ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady from the virgin islands, particularly for her leadership. and i'm delighted to join her in what i think is an enormously important discussion. oftentimes, congresswoman, we don't get a chance to have this kind of discussion when we're debating bills on the floor of the house. so let me first of all add again to your statistics, the more we can recite for people what the problem is, the better off we are. so you will see us standing over the next couple of days and weeks and isn't it interesting, as we are approaching thanksgiving and then the christmas holiday for many of us and holidays in different names, many other kinds of celebratory holidays, that call upon fellowship and food, to it

realize how many are im-- to realize how many are impoverished in this nation. i'm delighted to stand with our congressional black caucus, our friend, congressman barbara lee, our chairperson, chairman cleaver, and yourself. to firmly stand committed to combating poverty, eliminating hunger and avoiding providing health insurance for all citizens. let me just say in light of that, the supreme court indicating that they will take up the health care bill. but i'm going to join some pundits and take the risk and say that it's going to be upheld. i know there are a lot of rubbing of the hands and excitement because they see in the eyesight the depth now for the affordable care act. but the good news is that one of the judges that upheld the affordable care act was a conservative judge. who analyzed our right to require individuals to have

insurance for the greater good. that's not the legal interpretation. and i believe there is sufficient numbers on the court that will look beyond politics and realize that the heavy burden of health care is a heavy burden on the economy and if you are a conservative you will look more closely at individual responsibility. that's what the affordable care act is, along with preventative care, protecting children, if i'm going to be an optimist and i'm looking forward to the supreme court's decision, but our numbers show one of every six americans are living in poverty, a total of 46.2 million people. this is the highest number in 17 years and a country with so many resources. and you heard me say this before, our country is not broke. it can belt tighten, it can move dollars around and i'm glad that the congressional black caucus that is talking about create, protect and rebuild, has the answers. let me just say the children represent a disproportionate amount of the united states'

poor population and i chair the congressional children's caucus. in 2008 there were 15.45 million impoverished children in the nation. 20.7% of america's youth. the kaiser family foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them are children. and that 17.4% of households in the state struggle with food insecurity. in my district alone, the 18th congressional district, a very historic district, there are 190,000 people living below the poverty line. the highest number of people living in poverty in 17 years and then we are thinking about cutting vital social services. such as the supplemental excess snap program that fed 3.9 million residents of texas in april, 2011. the w.i.c. program, the census bureau also reported that there are 49.9 million people in the country without health insurance, we've already

discussed that. and texas happens to be the state with the highest number. compound all of that and you're literally taking the frontdoor, if there is one, opening the door and kicking people to the street. and i just want to deviate for a moment, as i just go over some very important aspects that i think, joining with the congressional black caucus, that if they would only listen, if you would only listen, i believe would move us on a pathway of creating jobs. just as we spoke about the jobs tour that we participated in this summer. but i want to be very clear. the second mile of pennsylvania was labeled as an organization that dealt with at-risk children. those are poor children. and some might ask, where is she going here? they are the most vulnerable. they are the most needy. and because those children were vulnerable, because those parents were vulnerable, because they were looking for relief,

looking for a child to have some sort of, if you will, activity and comfort, maybe even food, i'm sure those programs and trips out of town might have also had resources that children do not have. when a child is vulnerable they become a target for the most heinous of acts and if i might deviate and indicate that i intend to induce -- introduce legislation on two counts, one, to suspend any federal funding to any entity, academic, nonprofit, states and local government, prosecutors office, that have covered up and not prosecuted or have not reported sexual abuse of a child, excluding if it is an academic institution, a funding for scholarships and pell grants. and to also indicate funding, ramping up funding for the department of justice for anyone who carries a child over state

lines, for the intent of sexually abusing a child. . what an international image we have just gotten. not interested in the state or the particular academic institution, i don't know the coach's name, i just know in the course of the activity of this alleged perpetrator, there may be many more vulnerable poor children which we are talking about tonight, most i am pofferished and one person among others saw it and did not do anything about it. maybe not having anything to eat, have clothing or have a place to live, but places a child in the most horrible, horrific conditions, to the extent where you say the

predator is sick, the parent may not be home and may be struggling with three jobs, the child may need the comfort of an adult and that child becomes a victim. don't think that we are standing here and arguing against poverty. it is a systemic atmosphere and condition that will allow you to be victimized. let me go to the supercommittee what the c.b.c. is looking at. i will follow the quotes that some have heard who have testified before the committee, i had the privilege of sitting in one meeting and they are dedicated members of congress but this is not in the regular order. this was out of the order and came about through the forced need to lift the debt ceiling, in essence we were taken hostage. frankly, i'm going to suggest

that the supercommittee yield -- they can go to the 23rd but accept the inevitable in 2012 and do our business and respond to the suggestions of the congressional black caucus and legislation that many of us have introduced to create jobs, to balance the revenue and do our work. i want to suggest that there are many programs, neighborhood stablization programs have been touted all over america. it brings dollars into the depressed areas where these vulnerable children live and provides dollars, making good on $700 billion and allows properties to be restored. in the course of doing that, you

create jobs and don't have the big signs that say foreclosure. and then, of course, the national housing trust, that congress could provide at least $1 billion, a mechanism for affordable housing, when a whiled has a room and a light and a desk and a bed and that family feels comfortable, they are less vulnerable to sexual presented dators, to not having resources, being thrown to the world, if you will, and will create 15,000 jobs. unemployment insurance that many of us have worked on and joined with congressmen lee and scott to extend to the 99ers and make sure they can put bread on their table, pay their light bill, get gas to look for a job, will save 500,000 jobs, 500,000 jobs.

why is no one listening? it's a simple process. and has anyone heard of a country moving forward without investment in its people? and that's what we are arguing. very quickly, we have supported this for so long, no one will listen. everybody who is outsourcing is taxed and that will generate resources that will allow us to invest back into the treasury and invest in the national housing trust and increst in the neighborhood stablization program, invest in the 99ers, we can provide money to those who are in need, give a tax holiday for the first $20,000 on the payroll tax, which will provide opportunity for small businesses and put income in, if you will, the pockets of many who are in need, who week to week make ends meet and are very much in need

of that. as well, to help those who have been chronicically unemployed, to not discriminate against them but to give a payroll tax to hire the chronicically unemployed, so when they see help wanted, they will be excited about hiring someone because they have that benefit. by the way, can we make an announcement here? we're not broke. companies have trillions of dollars in their bank accounts and so do the banks but keep saying they are afraid to invest and let the money go because it's not a stable economy. how much louder do i have to say it's a chicken and egg. hire people. they invest in the economy and begin to buy things and you begin to manufacture. feas a chicken and egg and cart and horse. we establish manufacturing. if manufacturing makes things,

we have to buy things. how do you buy things? you have money to buy it. and i have been supporting this for a very long time as part of the manufacturing caucus. in addition, it is very important that we do as the w.p.a. did during the time of the horrible aftermath of the depression and the work force investment act would be assisting eight million people and give all these people a chance to fix the infrastructure all across america. cars will stop going into potholes, bridges will stop having cracks in them and will be able to put people back to work. tan of, emergency kingy fund, this -- contingency fund, this would make available temporary jobs for adults and create

240,000 jobs. and same thing with the infrastructure, again, how many people have traveled with limited amount of gas that have traveled? this is a simple process and i would argue vigorously that it is disappointing that we have not been listened to and members of the congressional black caucus and democratic caucus and the supercommittee is speaking about not fulfilling about putting the revenue on the table to have the cuts. i don't want sequestration. the vulnerable will be hit the hardest with all of the cuts that are pointing towards medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps and others that they allege are protected but i would argue, i made a

public commitment to my veterans last friday that i would not allow my vote or support one i oatha of veterans' benefits to be cut. i'm not willing to look at it as it has been proposed by my republican friends. they know how they can cut this. they can follow the affordable care act and close the doughnut hole on medicare part d, most expensive, heinous, insulting afront to spending money in the united states of america that was voted on the republican majority. our affordable care act, if allowed to be implemented would close the doughnut hole. seniors would jump for joy if we close the doughnut hole. if you talk about provider benefits. i oppose it. why? because i cannot trust the

knife. what does the knife do? it slashes hospitals and home care and others and when you slash it, you do jeopardize seniors. you have to find a way to cut the waste, fraud and abbas and we have determined that it can save us billions of dollars. i will not support cutting medicare, medicaid and social security. i will support the creation of eight million jobs. i will support investing in america's people. i will support in getting rid of their condition of at-risk children. these are at-risk children. these are poor children and we just accept it. they are numbers. well, at-risk children are i am pofferished and don't have good

health care and could be victims for the most heinous, sexual predator act of our times. we have heard of the faith institution that made changes and the catholic church spoke out today, and it is a disease and epidemic and comes out of poverty and vulnerability and don't cut it out of our children and families and even the bible says the poor will always be with us and they say be busy until we come and that means we should be busy until the lord comes until he comes, making the corrections that we have to make. i want to thank the gentlelady for allowing me to join her and to express as the chairwoman of the congressional black caucus

on work we have done. this work that has been done by the congressional black caucus and i say is anybody listening because we have the solution. eight million jobs, children who are protected and families who can get back on their feet, begin to increst back. with that, i yield back to the gentlelady. mrs. christensen: thank you congresswoman jackson lee for joining us and thank you for the work you do on the judiciary committee and especially for your strong defense of children and the rights of children and protection of children in this country. we look forward to the introduction of your bills as well and we ask for the support of our colleagues for them both as co-sponsors and when they get to the floor. thank you for joining us. you wanted to say something

else? ms. jackson lee: as i close, i did mention education, because many of us -- and i thank the gentlelady for yielding. many of us know that we are facing huge cuts in education. who does it hit, the vulnerable children in public schools. and before i leave the microphone, minority-majority school left in the state of texas targeted for closing because the state simply wants to be on a budget-cutting trip, if you wrill. and i leave the podium by saying to governor perry as i talked about our children, don't close and don't condemn children who are trying to learn in that school district. and to my colleagues, education creates jobs and invests in our children and i thank the gentlelady for yielding.

mrs. christensen: thank you for the otchtism of the affordable health care act at the supreme court and i share your optimism. but we'll take that as a very positive outlook on the outcome and i hope your predictions are correct. i want to ask, madam speaker, unanimous consent or general leave that all members may have five legislative days to present statements on the material of this special order. and also five legislative days for us to revise and extend our remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this special order this evening. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. christensen: and with no further speakers, madam speaker

-- you have one more? ok. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. mrs. christensen: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 30 minutes.

mr. gohmert: it is interesting to see the way the negotiations with the supercommittee are play out. -- playing out. some of us didn't vote for the debt ceiling bill. i know in my own case i didn't vote for it because i read it. i was concerned it was not a good idea. the country should not put their national security as a bargaining chip on the table. the national security is important to everyone on both sides of the aisle, it should never be used as a bargaining chip, whether or not we're going to devastate it. on the other side, the defense would be devastated at the same

time medicare would be devastated. if the supercommittee's recommendations are not approved by at least seven of the 12 and then congress does not pass them into law, medicare gets cut and so does the national security, get devastated. so, who stands to win, who stands to lose in that scenario? well, we know that when the, what's commonly referred to as obamacare, don't even remember the real name, when that got passed aarp said, hey, that's a good idea. even though it had $500 billion in cuts to medicare. i couldn't believe that some of

the groups then doersed that bill did endorse it. because for one, it had $500 billion in cuts to medicare. we got aarp stirring up seniors right now, sending the petition, tell them, you don't want any cuts to medicare, that you're a member of aarp, and i appreciated those petitions very much. those people that felt medicare shouldn't have been cut, should have been telling that to aarp back when they were thinking that obamacare was a good idea. it wasn't then, it's not now. and it won't be if it kicks in to effect fully and people start having rationed care. so, what would take people's minds off the fact that the president's pride and joy, his health care bill, cut $500 billion from medicare and

republicans didn't support it? didn't think it was a good idea. that's 100% a democratic bill. that was ram rodded through with most of the country against it. so the president has to considerry that mantle as do the leaders in charge at that time, the people that were in the majority in the house that time under speaker pelosi, as she pushed it through, and commenting that we needed to pass it so we could find out what was in it. well, i had read it. i knew what was in it. and knew it was a disaster waiting to happen. i knew that it hurt seniors badly, so we come back again to this supercommittee, what does leader reid and the senate democrats, even house democrats,

what do they have to gain if the supercommittee's proposals are not adopted? well, there will be massive cuts to security and there will be massive cuts to medicare and that will mean from a political standpoint that those same people that rammed through obamacare against the country's will will then be able to say before next year's election, look what happened, republicans caused a massive cut to medicare. they're the ones to blame. they'll be able to take people's minds off the fact that obamacare was a $500 billion cut to medicare, to our seniors, that will result in them having rationed care, getting on long lists before they can get treated, like happens in england, like happens in canada.

you get on a list to get your mammogram, get on a list if there's cancer there, to have it biopsies or -- biopsied or if there's a lump, have it biopsied, get on a list, have therapy of some kind, whether it's surgery, whether it's radiation, chemo, whatever, of whatever kind of cancer it is. you get on a list. i mentioned before, a man originally from canada who said his father died because he was on a list to have a bypass surgery for two years. if he'd been in the u.s., his son said he'd still be alive but he was in canada and because they have the socialized medicine program basically embraced by obamacare, then you were going to, you know, end up on a list. that's what happens when the government's completely in charge of health care. doesn't have to be like that.

when you look at the amount that the federal government, state government spend on medicare and medicaid, divided by the number of households in the country, we've gotten a bunch of different numbers but it appears that it may be around $25,000 for every household on medicare, medicaid. $30,000? just to pay for health insurance ? we'd be far better off buying them a high deductible policy and giving them cash money in a health savings account with a debit card they control, they

decide what doctor they go to, they decide what hospital they go to, they decide whether they want this medicine or that medicine. and when they go through, if they go through the amount of the high deductible, that's all the money that's in there to cover their health savings account, then their insurance kicks in. and we finally get the insurance companies out of the health management business and back into the health insurance business. because right now we don't really have any health insurance companies, we've got health management companies. i want to go back to having health insurance companies. insurance is when someone pays a small amount, monthly, quarterly, semiannually, annually, to insure against some

unforeseen event, either a catastrophic disease or accident, it's unforeseen. don't know if it's going to happen. don't know if you're going to run up health expenses to that kind of high mark, so you got an insurance policy to insure against that unforeseen event or disease. that's insurance. if we don't get the insurance companies back in the business of insurance instead of management, they may not be around because there will always be people that want to push something like the president did last year. most of us, i think, don't want the government telling us what medication we can have, what doctor we can see, why we can't see a doctor, why we're going to have to pay through the nose, why we'll have to buy an additional insurance policy to cover all the gaping holes that medicare, medicaid leave.

it would be nice if people didn't have to buy the supplemental insurance policies. but here again, you know, follow the money, aarp makes hundreds of millions of dollars each year selling their supplemental insurance, so they have a vested interest, who can blame them, in wanting to push through obamacare when it means even more money for their supplemental policies. what i'm talking about is a situation where seniors can have a choice. . you can have your medicare, if you're on medicaid, you can have medicaid. or we'll give you a debit card where you're back in control of your own health care. why not? it would be cheaper. it gets back to a real doctor-patient relationship. it gets people back in charge of their own health situations. the reason is because for many people it's, again, it's all about the g.r.e., the government

running everything. the founders didn't want the government running everything. but once the government has control of everyone's health care, they have a legitimate right to dictate what you can eat, what you can't eat, what you have to do in the way of exercise, what you can't do in the way of physical activity, they got a right because they're paying for your health care. they're paying for the health care, they have a right to tell you what you can or can't do. i do not want to live in a country where the government gets to tell me what i can eat or not eat, do or not do. government's role is supposed to protect people against evil, against evil people or countries who want to take away their freedoms and liberty. in other words, it's addressing the united states as providing

for the common defense. that's what we ought to be doing. then on the domestic front, our job is to provide a level playing field where everyone has an equal opportunity to pursue happiness. nobody's guaranteed happiness. that comes in the heart. but everyone would have an equal opportunity to pursue it. that's what we're supposed to do. we're supposed to be referees. we're not supposed to be the player referee. what a terrible game to be in. where the government's both player and referee. but i do want to give the president credit, any time i can . and he's been running around, even recently again saying that, i believe it was last night i saw him talking again about congress doing nothing. that's what congress wants to do. well, he is, again, got to give him credit, he's half right on

that. senate hasn't passed a budget in over 900 days. he's right. it's a do-nothing senate. they refused to pass any kind of debt ceiling bill until basically the house passed one that was acceptable. we should have forced them to pass their own c.r. back in march, their continuing resolution, but they were negotiated with and a bill was crafted that it appeared they could agree to pass in the nat -- in the senate. and what the country needs to see is what the house stands for , what the majority in the house stand for, and what the majority in the senate stand for. and i'm not sure that people have seen that. but it means the house should pass what a majority in the

house believes is best for the country. and then stand unmoved until the senate passes something. instead of trying to hit a mark that we think the senate can hit , we pass what we believe in, as cut, cap and balance passed, and then don't try to keep coming back and hit the market mash of the senate, make them pass something and then the law is very clear, this is all provided for, constitution provides for these two parties. it expected there would be times when they'd pass different bill from us and it will go to a conference committee and then a compromise is worked out and then those of us in the majority in the house can say, see what we passed it first, like cut, cap and balance, this is what we believe in. see what the senate passed first, see this monstrosity? that's what they believe in. so in the next election, when the house can say, if you want

more of this kind of bill and responsible spending, not continued runaway spending, this is what you do. if you want the continued runaway spending, more and more and more taxes, then go with the senate. i think there's some evidence to support that there are people in the opposition party who want to see the supercommittee fail, that want to see the massive cuts to medicare, not that it will ever be said publicly, but we know that pat too manyy, as he talked about yesterday, jeb hensarling talked about, two of our brightest minds on financial issues, we have some really good quality people on that supercommittee. so called. too mi had a framework --

toomey had a framework worked out and indications that there were democrats agreeing that it was not a bad setup. there would be some people who would lose some deductions, raising revenue without raising the taxation rate and in fact the taxation rate would be lowered, to a rate in the 20's. corporate tax in the 20's. but there would be enough deductions and writeoffs that would be eliminated, it was going to be -- going to raise revenue. one democrat even said that was a huge breakthrough when that was proposed. gave a lot of hope that something was going to be worked out. but then they talked to democratic leaders. we're not privy to what was said. next thing you know, there is no agreement. they're not going to agree to a deal. you can't help but wonder if that's evidence that they really didn't want this bill to

pass because if the supercommittee came up with a way to cut $1.2 trillion off the budget over the next 10 years, only $120 billion a year, then people next year, at election time, would really begin to realize just what obamacare did in cutting $500 billion off medicare. but if there are massive cuts to medicare, then republicans can be blamed before the next election even though it obviously would have been them standing in the way of passing a bill from the -- through the supercommittee. one of the things that should be a no-brainer, but aparently it's a no-starter, a zero

baseline budget bill. chairman ryan has assured me, on television, and chairman boehner said, we will bring that to the floor for a vote this year, it'll be passed out of the budget committee. i guess you can't guarantee it will be passed but i sure feel strongly when it's brought up for a vote in the budget committee, it will pass. when it's brought here to the floor, it will pass. and that will end this ridiculous automatic increase in federal budgets that was begun by a very, very liberal congress back in 1974. same one that created c.b.o. and started the ridiculous rules they're bound by, that do not let them consider historic reality in scoring a bill, but only has to follow a formula that sometimes forces them to come up with a scoring that is

completely unreal. and not supported by history. we've got trouble here. and it's not looking good. for that getting accomplished as it should. people playing games in america will suffer. book of proverbs tells us that, where there is no vision, the people perish. if we don't get people getting a bigger vision, not only of where this country has come from, but where it could go, then people are going to perish. and it's so unnecessary. well, it was interesting meeting again last week with

prime minister netanyahu. he was appreciative of the house resolution 271, provided a copy which goes through a lot of whereases, got lots of co-sponsors on this. i hope if anybody is not on, that they'll sure add their name to this, on both sides of the aisle, but the whereases include, whereas archaeological evidence exists confirming israel's existence as a nation over 3,000 years ago in the area in which it currently exists despite assertions of its opponents, it says 3,000 years ago, that was about the time of king david ruling in hebron and also the city of david, just turns out, hark yo logically, it's immediately

south of the area where the current walled city is, and of course the walled city is over the area which was original temple mount and the he rodian temple mount and hundreds of years later became of interest to people of the islamic religion. but it's actually much more than 3,000 years ago. but nonetheless, the bill says whereas with the dawn of modern zionism, the national liberation movement of the jewish people, some 150 years ago, the jewish people determined to return to their homeland in the land of israel, from the lands of their dispersing. so that means for people who are really wonderful, big-hearted people like ellen thomas, but are just ignorant of actual history, jews didn't

come from poland. they were originally in the promised land that extended from the mediterranean to the euphrates, if you go back and look at the promises made to david. whereas in 1922, the league of nations stated that the jewish people were the legal sovereigns of the area, whereas in the aftermath of the nazi-led holocaust from 1933 to 1945 in which the germans and their collaborators murdered six million jewish people in a premeditated act of genocide, the international community recognized that the jewish state must gain its independence from great britain. whereas the united states was the first nation to recognize israel's independence in 1948 and the state of israel has since proven itself to be a faithful ally of the united states in the middle east,

whereas the united states and israel have a special relationship, friendship, based on shared values and together share the common goal of peace and security in the middle east, whereas on october 20, 2009, president barack obama rightfully noted that the united states-israeli relationship is, quote, a bond that is much more than a stratenalic alliance, end quote, whereas the united states and israel and allies face a clear and present danger from the government of the islamic republic of iran seeking thue clear weapons and the ballistic capability to deliver them, whereas israel would face an existential threat from a nuclear weapons armed iran, whereas president barack obama has been firm and clear in declaring united states opposition to a nuclear armed iran stating on november 7, 2008, quote, let me state,

repeat, what i stated during the course of the campaign, i ran -- iran's development of a nuclear weapon, i believe, is unacceptable, unquote. and we know that since president obama stated it, he absolutely means it. even though he said that the negotiations on health care would be on c-span, be open for everybody, even though there were comments that he'd be focused on jobs like a laser, hopefully he really meant this. whereas on october 26, 2005, at a conference in tehran called world without zionism, iranian president ahmadinejad stated, quote, god willing, with the force of god behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the united states and zionism, whereas "the new york

times" reported during its october 26, 2005, speech, president ahmadinejad called for this occupy regular jet stream of israel to be wiped off the map, whereas on april 14, 2006, iranian president ahmadinejad said, quote, like it or not, the zionist regime, israel, is heading toward anilings, unquote, whereas on june 2, 2008, iranian president ahmadinejad said, i must announce that the zionist regime, israel, with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, evasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene, whereas on june 2, 2008, iranian president ahmadinejad said, today the time for the fall of the satanic power of the united states has come and the countdown to annihilation of the emperor -- empire of

power and wealth has started. whereas on may 20, 2009, iran successfully tested a surface-to-surface long range missile with an approximate range of 1,200 miles. whereas iran continues its support of knew -- its pursuit of nuclear weapons, whereas iran has been caught building three secret nuclear facilities since 2002, whereas iran continues its support of international terrorism, has ordered its proxy, hezbollah, to carry out catastrophic acts of international terrorism such as the bombing of the jewish amia center in buenos aires, argentina, and could give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization in the future, whereas iran has refused to provide the international atomic energy agency with full transparency and access to its nuclear program, whereas the united nations security council resolution 1803 states that

according to the international atomic energy agency, quote, iran has not established full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities and heavy water related projects as set out in resolution 1696, 1737, 1747, nor resumed in its corporation with the iaea under the additional protocol nor take then other steps required by the iaea board of governors nor complied with provisions of the security count resolutions. 1796, 1747, 1737. whereas in july, 2009, g8 summit in italy, iran was given a september, 2009, deadline to start dismantling its nuclear program and iran left out any

mention of iran's own nuclear program which was the true issue in question. whereas the united states has been fully committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the iranian nuclear threat and has made boundless efforts to determine if such a resolution is even possible, whereas the united states does not want or seek war with iran but will continue to keep all options open to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and whereas israeli prime minister netanyahu stated in 2011 that a change of course in iran will not be possible without a, quote, credible military option put before them by the international community led by the united states, unquote. now, therefore, be it resolved that the house of representatives, number one, condemns the government of the islamic republic of iran for its threats of annihilating the

united states an state of israel, for its continued support of terrorism and for its incitement of genocide of the israeli people. number two, uses all means to persuade iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons, and pledges to continue work with the government of israel and the people of israel to ensure that their sovereign nation continues to receive critical, economic, and military assistance, including missile defense capabilities needed to address the threat of iran and number four, expresses support for israel's right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by iran, defend israeli sovereignty and protect the lives an safety of the israeli people, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time. there's a bunch of co-sponsors on this bill. but we need a lot more.

we need pressure to bring it to the floor. of the house and of the senate. prime minister netanyahu is right, sanctions won't do it unless iran knows the military threat is very real, they're not likely to stop. people keep talking about sanctions, sanctions, yeah, if we just sanction the banks, if we sanction this, sanction that. well, the truth is, russia and china have said they're not going to play that game, they're not going to get involved, and as upset as i have been with russia and china over some issues, i'm grateful that they're honest about this. my concern was russia and china would say, oge, we'll have sanctions, knowing that there is no better time to make an absolute fortune than when some sanctions are declared against a country that has something like oil. . it means all the other

countries participating in the sanctions don't get the benefit from any contracts and therefore, that means a bigger share for whoever wants to cheat on the sanctions. at least russia and china said we aren't going to do the sanctions. why in the world are we bothering these days to keep saying sanctions are going to work? almedalmed has said -- ahmadinejad has said, madam speaker, it is clear that iran is a threat to the united states and israel and should not leave it to israel to defend the united states. we ought to defend ourselves and go after iran and take care of this problem ourselves. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now adjourn.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning for the morning hour debate. >> later this week, members consider a balanced budget amendment. then a bill concerning concealed handguns across state lines. follow c-span tomorrow when members gavel back in tomorrow. coming atop a discussion on jobs

and the economy. you will first hear from governor martin o'malley of maryland. he was at the national press club. tsman, and then a forum on state voting law changes. this is hosted by house democrats. >> the c-span.org web page is now easier to use. we have added a handy channel finder. at the all-new c-span.org. on jobs, thealley

economy. he is chairman at the democratic governors association and spoke at the national press club for little less than an hour. >> good morning. welcome to the national press club and today's program. i am a member of the newsmaker committee. thank you for being here. this might be a good time for everyone to put their mobile devices on vibrate. we are fortunate that as our guest the governor of maryland, who is chairman of the democratic governors'

association, martin o'malley. with the election around the corner, we hope he will share a few notes from his election playbook on the role of democratic governors will play next year. the first -- first elected he wasor in 2006, reelected last year. under his administration, maryland has cut nearly $7 billion in spending and at the same time the state has made huge investments in education. maryland is one of only eight states with a aaa credit rating. maryland ranks 10th in new job creation with an unemployment rate below the national average. maryland public schools have been ranked best in the nation for three years and a row. as chair, he is widely credited

with stemming a tide. compared to his predecessors, he is seen as being more aggressive toward republicans and is a staunch ssupport of president obama's agenda. most insiders believe governor o'malley will be a shoo-in to win election as the dga chair december, and i just discovered he appeared as himself in the movie "the latter 49."

with that i am pleased to introduce maryland governor martin o'malley. >> thank you. thank you, and thank you to everyone here at the national press club. thank you for being here this morning. it is great to be here with you, and i want to talk to you a little bit today from a democratic governors perspective about the pace of the nation's jobs recovery, economic policies the democratic governors are making to accelerate that recovery. each of us has a role to play. also, the very different set of byoices i see being made in many republican governors. let's jump in. over the last five years in our state, in maryland, we have been focused on creating jobs and improving the conditions for job

creation. with proformance punishment, we of making government work more effectively, with openly setting public goals and with transparency. we measure progress toward achieving those goals. building on those strengths, and better decisions of our state's past. we have done so in challenging economic times. we have done this by choosing a balanced approach that includes a mix of cuts, revenues, and strategic investment in that better future that we prefer. should he give investments in the very foundations of our economic strength, like public education. the progress that we are making the 20,000 jobs we have

created, this never happened before, but it happened in the middle of this great recession. crist we're making in driving crime to down to its lowest level since the 1970's, and cars and protecting -- and progress in protecting our aaa bond rating. democratic governors are balancing the budget, making tough choices, creating jobs, moving forward and doing it all at the same time. as governor bashear recently said, including a perfectly good campaign in kentucky, he said closing days of that campaign, true leadership is having the courage to make the right cut and the good sense to make the right investments. last week in ohio, and last week, also, in kentucky, and about a month ago in west virginia, we solve voters sent a

powerful message, and it was this -- knock off the narrow ideologies and put job creation for irst. steve bashear ran a perfect campaign on focusing the choices that we made together in order to create and save jobs and expand opportunity. that is also what governor tomlin did in west virginia. in kentucky, at the close of the campaign, as he stay focused on jobs, his opponent went into her feel -- into peripheral issues and challenging the base of the governor's religious beliefs.

they stay focused on the things good leaders do to bring people together to make the tough, but right decisions. in ohio voters disapproved of the governor's overreaching anti-u ideology by rejecting senate bill 5. this bill would have taken away collective bargaining rights from public employees, including moms and dads who happen to serve all of us as firefighters, police, or teachers. were people turned out to vote against -- more people turn out to vote against senate bill 5 then turned out to vote for the governor to begin with. the voters were saying enough, already, with the anti-union in deology. voters in all three of these states told us they want their leaders to bring people together

to create jobs to solve problems and do the things that work. that is what democratic governors are doing in every part of our country, making the tough choices now to create jobs and to expand opportunity. recently governor mollet of connecticut called a special session around chocolate -- job creation, and he brought democrats and republicans alike come on a package of tax credits, job training, or four, and support for small businesses. in delaware, jack markell, a man who has a business approach to make government work, has put it forth a serious job creation initiative called building delaware's future now, which calls for additional investments in the job creation parties supported by democratic and

republican business groups across the country. in north carolina, the governor's initiative seeks to make every student ready for college by graduation from high school. there are two economic models at play here. if there is anything we should have learned from the administration of george do you bush, it is that trickle-down economics does not work. trickle-down economics does not create jobs. trickle-down economics does not grow our middle class and does not expand opportunity. yet, the struggle goes on between two competing models, one that has been proven to work in every generation, versus one

that brought us record debt and unemployment. one that built the largest middle-class in the history of the planets, versus one that promise declining middle-class incomes drove our national economy nearly into a second great depression. these two different sets of twins as were playing out in state houses across our country. let's go back to ohio as one example among many. republican governor kasich is making deep cuts in economic priorities, like public education, even as he cut taxes for the estate of dead millionaires and billionaires. hoping they will reach back from the grave and create jobs and expand opportunity for those of us that are still living. by their own trickle-down theory, the massive concentration of wealth should

have brought about better times and not economic disaster. if their theory worked, millions of jobs should have been created by this concentration of wealth, the greatest concentration that has ever happened in one sliver of our population since the 1920's. there should be jobs falling from the sky. we created only 1 million jobs as a nation during the bush administration. during the clinton administration, we created 23 million jobs. i report, you decide. which one is the more effective model? basic -- they sit in accomplishing their means well, and that means was extreme concentration of wealth. it brought about near disastrous economic results for the other 99% of us. it has been a failure for

america and america's economic growth, and we are still recovering from losses of the bush decade and there failed to co-down economic model. president obama and democratic governors reject their model. it is not fiscally responsible. it is not good for our country. we believe in a different model, a more effective model, a more traditionally american model. this was job creation first and recognizes that to create jobs a modern economy requires moderate investments. that is not a democratic or republican ideas. that is an economic truth. that is a historic truth. that is an american idea, one that we proved out time and time again as a people. along with the bill before we recover all the we have lost the last decade, but we can make our economy stronger and we can make our country better. last month our nation achieve

the 13th month in a row of positive job growth under president obama's leadership. that is 13 months in a row, which is the longest stretch of consecutive, cost of job creation that our country has achieved since 2005-2006. meanwhile, get this, the private sector has gone for 20 consecutive month in a row of net cost of job growth. last month under the president's leadership we drove home foreclosures down to the second lowest month that we have seen since november, 2007. in july it was the 44th month low. because we're starting to make better choices as a people, our economy is starting to get better. bank failures are down, but better is not good enough. we have not regained all we have lost in the bush recession and

too many citizens are still searching for work, and there's a lot to do. the truth of our situation is we will not move beyond our current job creation and the employment difficulties simply by cutting. it is not possible. if it feels to you that every month our economy is taking two three steps forward and taking one step back, that is because every month, for every two or three jobs created in the private sector, our public sector is eliminating a job. the absence of a more balanced approach, the absence of moderation in political decisions of our national endeavor is forcing counties, cities, forcing states to actually slowed down our jobs recovery with never-ending layoffs and job eliminations. if our public payrolls were bloated, perhaps we could chalk this up to some sort of right-

sizing, but in most cases our public payrolls are not loaded. how much more public safety you think would be good for baltimore or newark? how much less public education you think our nation think is good? we have been under investing in that common platform of job creation and opportunity expansion called the united states. others may want to talk about the morality of an economic system and all economics systems that are political. others may rightly talk about morality of an economic system that is read that concentrates so much of our nation cost well in the hands of so few. i am just as concerned about how these fortresses keep us from investing in our country and a better future and a better job opportunities that we all want for our children.

other president eisenhower in the 1950's, our country invested 12% of federal non-defense spending. today we are at 3%. when it comes to basic research and development, we are investing 60% less than we were investing when richard nixon was elected president. in just the last 10 years or so, we have seen our ranking in the percentage of our people that have college degrees actually shrink among the nations of the war, decline among the nations of the world. it is not what other countries are doing to us. it is what we are not doing for ourselves. no one else is going to do these things for us. no one else is going to make these national economic investments in education and infrastructure for us. the american society of civil

engineers recommends that we invest, should invest $846 billion over the next decade to upgrade roads, bridges, and tunnels. ending the bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, returning to clinton-era tax rates for those highest brackets would allow us to making $400 billion of that $800 billion in needed investment. the government is to choose. the government is to choose. democratic governors believe there are some challenges that are so large that we can only hope to accomplish them by working together. creating jobs, spurring innovation, expanding opportunity in this fast- changing new economy, improving public education and public safety, making college more affordable for more people, rebuilding a 21st century transportation infrastructure,

eradicating childhood poverty -- these things will not happen by themselves. we must do them as we always have before. we must do them together and we must do them ourselves. i appreciate your time in coming here today. i thank you for your interest. it is my honor to have been able to serve them this last year. i am proud of each one of them, and they are all making our country better place. i will be glad now to open it up the questions and search with you for answers. thanks. >> perfect. >> stay here? but what do you want to do? >> we will open it up for crashes. give us your name as well as your affiliation. i'm curious how you think

the supercommittee's work and what appears to be no compromise at this point factors into your call for more invested. it seems like the opposite is being discussed now. >> the question is about the supercommittee and the important work that they are doing. i hope that the supercommittee will make progress in bringing us that in this time of tremendous division and polarization. what we need is a spirit of compromise, a spirit of moderation, and an ability to adopt a balanced approach. when 55% of our debt is driven by push-era tax cuts that primarily benefited the very wealthy, that balanced approach must reasonably conclude and on doing, or force or, if you

will, and and to that ongoing self-inflicted revenue wound. there was some little bit of talk from our friends in the proper party of lincoln about that, a further examination of that first sort of overture, coming even as late as it did, and it appeared to mean more of a shell game than a real step toward reversing the damage of those bush when the false. -- windfalls. i spoke earlier with chris van hollen. maryland is very proud that congressman van hollen on that committee. he continues to work. there is that sequestered looming, and hopefully they will make some progress here.

we all need to stay at this. we did not have any other congress for right now. as frustrated as we get at how often this new republican congress breaks down, this is the thing we have right now, and we got to try to pull things together and make progress with the national interest at the forefront. we are steering between -- me stop there. i do not want to filibuster your question scars. >> you know in wisconsin they are pursuing every call for the governor. in the dga, are you supportive of that movement, and yet he thought about using any resources to accomplish that? >> here are a lot people who

would like to recall governor volcker in wisconsin. as an organization, we have not had a conversation about that. we have an opportunity to replace a near-minded in the logical and effective governor with a democrat who can get things done. we have just come through this first cycle, david, and the wisconsin recall will soon be coming up on our horizon, and i do not want to get too far ahead of my colleagues. what i can safely say on their behalf is if the recall goes forward, if successful ca, the , as we were in all kyle. -- in ohio. >> i believe you are traveling to india later this month.

>> the question is i am traveling to india. i am traveling with a number of business people from maryland, traveling with judge katie o'malley, will be doing work on role of all things, which she has taken on as first lady. i will be traveling there primarily to promote maryland as a destination for foreign-direct investment into maryland. we have an outstanding work force and our state. capita more ph.d.'s per than any other state in the union.

so all of these things, along with the food and drug administration make our state a powerhouse, both for innovation and life science and i.t., and also the national institute of standards makes us pretty much be in dispute it at the center for cyber security. we hope to build on those strengths advertise them and recruit investors from india to invest in maryland. i am traveling there the friday after thanksgiving, and i will be there ruffly for a week. thank you. >> [unintelligible]

>> the question is what the race is coming up next year, there are 11 races up next year, and next year is a presidential year. we have our work cut out for us. these are not easy times. ould like to see the recovery happen more quickly than it is, and nobody wishes that more than the president and democratic governors, but this is a very challenging time. a lot people are hurting, and there are no easy solutions or answers. so the races coming up next here are not only important in the

traditional way of looking at horserace, there are important battles -- the past, places like ohio, places like florida, places like wisconsin have played important roles in the electoral college met. in all three of those states we have a tremendous amount of buyer's remorse elected a new governor of a new party, thinking they were sending a strong message for job creation, and instead what they got back was a lot of impractical and extreme right-wing ideology, whether the anti-union stuff wor cutting health care for seniors and college in order to fuel tax cuts for the wealthy.

those dynamics are also going to play out, and the dga, and the contrast the democratic governors provide by example will also play an important role in this presidential race. we are very excited about the potential in indiana. speaker gregg -- i have met with him. he is a dynamic person with a sort of your list commitment to public service and the ability to speak honestly about these complex issues. we also have our vice-chair, up for reelection in north carolina. in washington state we will have a governor's state in washington state. jay inslee has written a book on creating jobs in the greek economy. that is an exciting race. in new hampshire, john lynch,

one of the more important -- popular governors, and that is after eight years here there will be a race to fill his seat, and in vermont, they like to elect their governors on two- year cycles. that one will be up as well. montana, brian schweitzer will complete his two-term limit. will be a lot of things going on in the dynamic of the presidential race. it is not the largest year, the year when we have 30 governors' offices of, but it is an important year, and some of the most important work going on as far as it plays into the presidential race will be the contrast of democratic governors

who bring people together to make the tough decisions and the right investments to create jobs and opportunity now, and republican governors who are giveing us some pretty mean spirited right-wing etiology that never created a single job. that will be the choice. >> one of my favorite -- >> you believe government can work, can make things happen. hothea>> you have had a gas tax increase in maryland. will that be a palatable thing?

>> the question is about the gas tax and the possibility of raising it in maryland. there was recently, for those of you who might have missed this, we had a blue ribbon commission empaneled by the legislature to look at what we are investing in our infrastructure to make recommendations for what we need to do in order to invest at a level so not only our bridges did not fall into our rivers, but also that we are building up that common platform of hours that creates jobs. one of the hardest-hit sectors of our economy is the construction industry. the blue ribbon commission came back with a proposed 15-cent increase. we are considering that. we're looking at that. what or not we are successful in being able to bring people to

to make investment in our infrastructure is going to depend on the dynamic that takes place. i am one person, one servant leader in this government. we have to figure this out. nothing tougher to ask people to do in the midst of a recession where everyone is hurting than to ask them to pay a little more for anything. so i think among the various taxes out there who would be sore-pressed to find one more unpopular than a tax on gasoline. have been said that, in our state -- having said that, we have a flat tax on a gallon of 23 cents. when gasoline was $8.80 per

gallon -- $1.08, that is when the 23 cents when on. since the 1970's, are road and transportation and infrastructure network, the amount of land we consume and the amount of network that has to be extended has greatly increased. the gas tax on a gallon has not. even as the price of gasoline went up recently the over $4, the gas tax still stayed at 23 cents. however innovative you want to be in terms of financing for these things or public-private partnerships, there is no way build a $90 million bridge for $10 million. you might be able to push off bond payments, you might choose to toll it, as my predecessor

did in the icc, but there is no way to build a $90 million bridge for 10 main dollars. we need that this conversation to figure out what to do. will the results be some sort of hybrid? could be. what we need to acknowledge is we need to invest more in our infrastructure than we were in the 1970 costs, and no one else is going to do that for us. 's, and no one else is going to do that for us. >> gathered day there was an article about speculating maryland is losing jobs because of its tax rate to virginia. the income tax -- was wondering if you could address that, and what are the plans to keep

improving the education system in maryland? >> let me talk about the tax question. the question was with maryland progressive income tax, do we see that as anti-competitive, and the second part is what are we doing to improve public education. on the first score we put in place three years ago a progressive income tax. we lowered taxes for 85% of maryland residents. we've increased income taxes for 50% of maryland residents. we went from having 1 flat rate to having it graduated the more you learn about the greater percentage that you pay. there were dire predictions at that time that the woodrow wilson bridge would be clogged

with millionaires packing up the family and moving to virginia. that the not happen. in fact in the latest census results, we ranked number one, near the very top of the country -- nodding heads telling me we are number one in the number of millionaires we have per-capita in our state. as far as job creation goes, depending on the period of time or how you measure, if you look at that new job creation on this year on a calendar basis compared to our neighbors in virginia, and we are glad that virginia as a neighbor. i think you want strong neighbors. if you have a store and are in a wall, you want the other stores to be attractive to people. we like the fact that we have a

strong neighbor in virginia. on this -- in terms of maryland's competitiveness and what we offer, so far on this year maryland ranks 10th in that the job creation among the 50 states. virginia ranks 49th, i believe, on the year. they're on a plot is a little lower than ours. our unemployment is higher. together we make a tremendous region, and so we continue to compete. we never like to lose a headquarters to virginia. at the same time, there are not many things in terms of economic strengths i would trade with

virginia. our tax code is more favorable when it comes to new investments and advanced manufacturing. we have the best schools in the country three years in a row. our colleges have become more affordable in the last years, while others have become less affordable. the innovation assets that we have in i.t. and life science and biotech are superior to those in virginia. they do have a lot more land than we do. i would like to have more land. and then out, there is not a lot i would trade with virginia, and we are glad to have them as strong neighbors. >> are some of the lessons from the 2011 cycle, wins and defeats that you will take into 2012? >> the lessons from that, i think the biggest lesson is that people are pragmatic and people

are not fundamentally illogical in their approach to the balance required -- ideological in their approach to the balance required to create jobs. i think the lesson in 2011 is that -- my perspective on why am here -- if you look at kentucky, that was a state that the president did not win, and yet our candidate won by a huge margin in kentucky. this was against a long-serving senate president in kentucky. you look at weston jena. again, a state that -- you look at west virginia, a state that president obama did not win, but our candidate prevailed despite a huge rush of dollars.

if there is a lesson it is that the voters are paying attention than perhaps many convicts gave them credit for, and they do not like over reach, they do not like ideology, and they do not like mean spiritedness and they want us to bring people together on jobs and job creation. a similar lesson, they taught us in the midterms, and that was that having failed to explain the fiscal imperative an economic imperative that health care, they thought we were overreaching as a party and pushing something that was something in the wheelhouse of our care and compassion philosophy without regard to the primary concern of moms and dads having now, which is having a

roof over their head and having food on the table. that is the lesson, that voters are paying attention and they do not like this sort of mean- spirited ideology. it may excite the tea party crowds at the republican debates, but it is not what mainstream america wants from their leaders. >> questions? >> last week we saw the fees for democratic candidate is in mississippi and louisiana. you're not going to be contested races there next year, but what is the road map for democrats to rebuild their straight in parts of the deep south where they are struggling right now? >> repeating the question, what do we do about the deep south of how do we rebuild our party in ehe deep south i cannot car

whether you're from the south, north, west, east, i thinks everybody wants their government to work for the taxes you know, you look at the good work that mike bebe is knowing arkansas. in fact, i think he was featured on the corner of "governing" magazine. he is a very effective governor. he communicates very directly with the people he serves and makes his government work and he is focused every day on creating jobs, expanting opportunity and growing our middle class. governor perdue in north carolina has been fighting a courageous fight and appears that her approval numbers are reflecting the public's approval

of her fight to defend education for all of north carolina's children and therefore the quality of north carolina's workforce. so some states we have tougher times than others because of registration, because of the strength of the current republican party in those states, but the key to turning around -- not turning around -- the key to winning in 2012 is the key to governing successfully for our country's future and that is make the government work, be open and transparent, set goals, stay focused on job creation all the time, and i think that can work in any part of our country. i think you'll also see a country that is changing demographically and becoming, you know, more diverse as she has, fortunately, in every

generation and that diversity brings us tremendous strength and creativity. i think you see a growing numbers of latino families who are coming into our country and are making this american dream work and believe very much in our country's future and the message of democratic governors, which is jobs and opportunity and making the tough choices now i didn't answer that gentleman's school question. we have a number of things on our website. if you go on maryland.gov, we have 15 strategic goals for our state. spang four big categories. -- spanning four big categories. health, sustainable, security of our people and the skills of our people. all four of those endeavors are about job creation at their core. all four are related to one another and our goal of

improving student achievement in our state can be found there along with the plan for doing that, things like continuing to make investments not only in the operations of our school system so we can keep and retain great teachers but also in school construction where we have invested a record amount in the last four years as a state. it is the skills to compete initiative where we're pushing not only for more career and technical education in all of our high schools but also for greater access in our community colleges. two-year degrees because 40% of jobs will require only a certificate or a two-year degree. we also are adopting unlike our neighbors in virginia, the common core curriculum so our children can be benchmarked on their performance in science, technology, engineering and math against children all over the world. maryland was alone among the states that saw an improvement

in our nape scores in our recent standardized testing. we have been able to triple the number of teachers in secondary schools that are certified to teach in science, technology and math. we have increased the number of children taking a.p. exams and passing them in high school and science technology engineering and math and also in redoing our curriculum have been working in a fiscal, a financial literacy component as well as an environmental literacy come fonet our school curriculum. those are some of the things we are doing. in areas where the dropout problem is very chronic and has been, we're doing some innovative things, especially in baltimore city where they have brought the dropout rate down on a greater amount on a

year-to-year basis. on a number of things like twilight schools and other things. it is all there on the website, maryland dwoff. you can click on the tabs for the education for our people. the plan, the delivery plan is there as it is for the cleanup of the bay and the greenhouse gases and other things i mentioned including public safety. >> questions? >> i have one last question. >> based on what you have done in maryland, can you give any advice to those in the super committee for those in congress trying cut spending and raise revenue? >> the advice for this on a super committee would be to -- i don't know, the -- that's a great question. i guess first and foremost what comes to mind and that we can't

give up and they can't give up. the second thing is that they -- all of us need to put the national interest first. the people sort out the politics. we're all servants here. they depend on us to make the right decision, especially in times as precarious as these. you mentioned in your remark something about my taking a much more aggressive posture towards republicans, members of the party of lincoln. i think our country really desperately needs party of lincoln again. i would like to think in some ways that i'm taking a much more understanding and more -- a much more understanding approach to my republican colleagues. i think we cannot allow ourselves to believe -- excuse me, that any one party ever has all of the answer.

we need each other. we're part of an ongoing story here. and we need the party of lincoln to re-emerge. we need that party of fiscal responsibility to re-emerge. that party of security to re-emerge. we have to recognize the unity that is and find ways to work together in a more understanding way. i mean, whatever the -- whatever the current detour, rough patch that their party is going through, pandering to the tea party and trying to one-up each other in these presidential debates about who is more in favor of torturing prisoners, you know, there are a lot of really, really good people that are republicans and believe the fiscal responsibility, that believe in the generous, caring nation that our parents and grandparents built and made for us and we need to find that goodness and we need to have the understanding to not ever allow

ourselves to become victim to our own political quackery. we have to find ways to work in the middle and hopefully they will find a way to undo that self-unelectricity fromed revenue wound of the bush era tax cuts and we'll find ways to make medicare and medicaid more effective so we can save dollars and care for the citizens who need it. my advice is to search for understanding in one another and look for the partially good intentions in one another and never give up. >> that is all the questions. thank you for coming out. this concludes our program. >> thanks a lot.

>> in a few moments, republican presidential candidate jon huntsman on his jobs plan and the economy. in a little less than an hour, state voting law changes and voters' rights hosted by house democrats and after that, we'll they are a comments of maryland governor martin o'malley on jobs in the state. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. republican senator marco rubio will be interviewed by mike allen at 8:15 on c-span 2 and a

little after that on c-span 3, defense secretary leon pennetta testifies about iraq security before the senate armed services committee. that's at 7:00. wednesday, watch live streaming coverage of the national book awards from new york city and the awards ceremony starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern. this weekend, book tv is live from the miami book fair international with the events and viewer call in thises. -- call ins. find the complete schedule online at booktv.org. >> republican presidential candidate john hunts man talked about the economy. -- jon huntsman talked about the

economy. and plan to stimulate job growth. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> today's discussion will focus on the economy. jobs. tax reform. and the budget.

governor huntsman in course of the discussion will outline his plan to create jobs and revive the economy. it is also a great pleasure to welcome his daughter abbey sitting here and her husband, jeff livingston. this is the third time brookings has hosted governor huntsman. we had the pleasure twice before when he was ambassador to china when he participated in our u.s./china strategic forum on clean energy, once in beijing and once in washington. as the 16th governor of utah, john's economic policies were -- his signature policies were tax reduction, reducing government and growing utah's economy. he also has extensive foreign policy experience. as ambassador to china, as deputy u.s. trade representative and ambassador to singapore. having served under four different u.s. presidents. he has argued foreign policy is

critical not only for national security but also for economic growth. jon has been a businessman, a political leader and a statesman. we're very pleased he is able to join us today. the session will take the form of a discussion between ted gayer, sitting to jon's right, the co-director of our economic studies program, before coming to brook, he was a professor at georgetown and also served in the bush 43 administration under hank paulson of the treasury department. so please join me welcoming governor huntsman. [applause] >> thank you. it is a great honor having you. >> a bit of trepidation that i'm the first of the candidates. there must be a reason nobody else has appeared.

>> they will get here. let's start off with what i think is arguably the most pressing problem we face, the labor market problem. we have had some job gains in the last year but not enough to keep up with normal job growth. we are treading water pretty much, flat, 9% unemployment, it is really a staggering problem. the number that one of my colleagues points out, if we were to get 200,000 jobs per month, if we were to get that month after month after month, it would still take us 12 years to get back to where we were preinvestigation. what role does the federal government have to help us dig out of this enormous problem. what would you advocate as president? >> what i learned as governor, i would apply as president and that is a leader through leverors policy making can influence a state or a country's

level of competitiveness. so we did that in the state of utah. the great state. we made it number one in job creation. we made it the most attractive destination for business. we worked on innovative education policies. job training programs. we looked at what we needed to do in our state to compete in a region, the western region of the united states that in a way that would set us apart from others. when you stop to think that, you know, the brain power leaving your state, which we saw the year that -- a lot of people were talking about it, going somewhere else. if you're a state and your college graduates are leaving, that is a bad sign. that is your intellectual firepower for the future. if your entrepreneurs are not aboutive.

if investment is not landing in your marketplace, then it is landing somewhere else. capital is a coward, you have got to argue. it will flee whether it -- to wherever it proceeds as the marketplace. you have to create an environment that speaks to the attraction of brain power. you have to create a marketplace for the interaction of capital. we looked at where we want to be. utah is a unique state. not california or new york. you have natural resources, geography, terrifically well educated, talented workforce. you have a commitment to the firm. which was what i heard from a lot of people. very loyal people. and you had a real entrepreneurial streak in the population. how do you free that up?

>> it can be 10 things or five things or three things. let's prioritize them. did. i came up with a 10-point plan. we enumerated those 10. we attached the underlying assumptions to them. what it would mean to the marketplace in terms of economic revival. it kind of started with tax reform. we have an old fashioned system. i used to describe it as you know, a delap stated system from the 1950's. kind of a 1955 chevy traveling on the super highway. if you compete with the likes of colorado, idaho, texas or -- you have got to do better.

so we came up with a tax reform program. we failed our first time before the legislature. we succeeded the second year and we delivered essentially a flat tax. we phased out loopholes and deductions. i wanted all of them gone even though that is politically treacherous, the home interest deduction. no one wants to talk about that. i said i don't want it. you have to raise the revenue. get the rate down. brought the rates lower. what we produced was better than we had before. what it did as much as anything else, it infused the sense of confidence into the marketplace. people talked about us writing about the utah market. "forbes," fortune. a marketplace on the move. that had a reinforcing aspect to it.

investment begins to flow inward. you're all of a sudden a hot market. brain power is attracted to your local university, which we found. becomes a more attractive place to be. revenues increased. we were able to trip it will rainy day fund. we were able to make investments in our state that up to that point we just couldn't think about. we couldn't have afforded like paying teachers what i thought they were worth, which is far beyond what they are getting today. putting innovative programs into the classroom like early childhood development, expanding choice and then at the higher ed level coming up with some summers of excellence that would attract brain power. i learned serving on the economic board in the 1990's, the lesson of economic development which opened the floodgates for brain power. lower the tariffs for barriers. give them something to do to

level the playing field and try to bring them ahead of the economic competition which they have always been able to do. we have to make sure our environment, our competitive environment is conducive to attracting the elements that an economy needs for success. so i say this is totally applicable nationally because we need to infuse a sense of confidence into this economy. there is capital. there are great ideas. we have the most innovative entrepreneurial creative class the world has ever seen. they are still here. they want to be set free. they want to get after it. there is not a level of confidence today that is compelling companies to unleash expenditures into the marketplace that is not inspiring folks to hire. to bring people on which gets to joblessness. i say we must in this country create an environment that speaks to 21st century

competitiveness. it is not going to be easy. you can't do it overnight. i'm convinced we must take some early steps to move us in that direction. attracting capital and brain power, it is important because i think we have an opening here in terms of rebuilding our manufacturing muscle in this country. a lot of people say those days are gone. we can't do it again. i was born in 1960. we exported $2 for every three we imported. we have an opening here. why? because china's g.d.p. is going from 8%-10% over 30e years running to what will be 4%-6%. china carries with it political instability. that investment that always just

kind of -- flows into china for manufacturing purposes will be looking for an alternative and we would be stupid in this country if we didn't say we're going to be that alternative and we're going to address the defects and deficiencies in our competitive environment and we're going to win that investment here. it also assumes if you have a who can sit down with the manufacturing alliance, the chamber of commerce and say folks, i know you capital expenditures planned for all corners of the world but i have a request on behalf of all the people in this country, we want you to do it here. i want you to go back to your boards of directors and think again about where you're going deploy these capital expenditures because we're going to rebuild our manufacturing muscle and? exchange for that, i'm going to fix taxes and create a regulatory environment that is

conducive to growth and take steps in energy independence. >> could i just -- i want to dig a little bit deeper about tax reform and your history and your proposal now. your plan is endorsing one of the simpson bowles fiscal -- you could have lower marginal tax rate but you toe eliminate some of the tax -- to eliminate some of the tax expenditures. 23% is a substantial decrease in the tax rate. i can count three commissions who have come out with reasonable plans and then they get chewed apart and nibbled on the edges and each one of these tax expenditures -- you get a lot of political figures saying this is a great idea but not the mortgage interest deduction or the unearned income tax credit.

in order to get those low rates and fund it, that would have to be fund bid limb in additionor earned income tax credit, child tax credit. i don't know which one of those -- mortgage interest deduction. are you dedicated to get rid of all of those or are we back to picking and choosing and unfortunately that is when the deal sometimes falls apart from the budget point of view. >> the simpsons bowles plan, i think they did an excellent job and i think the president made a fundamental tactical error by throwing it in the garbage can. why? because it was done in a bipartisan fashion. maybe some of the numbers were a little off from where i would have put them. on tax reform, you have to assume it will get through congress.

i look at what my colleagues are doing. 9-9-9 doesn't start anywhere. who would want to see a 9% uptick in state taxes? romney nibbles around the edges. perry has a flat tax that we delivered to the people in utah. it is an option. if you're gaming the system, you will continue the game it. all of that is nonsense. we either think big or we're either bold when our nation needs it most or you don't do it at all. you to pass the straight faced test in terms of what can be done in congress so it is not laughed out on day one. i'll take something that is being looked at from a bipartisan standpoint. something there that is -- that is to like. second of all, you know, i would say if, the "wall street journal" comes out, the most

respected editorial page in the country, they say huntsman, the crazy guy is the best of the bunch, i say there is an opportunity we have to bring together a necessary coalition, bipartisan coalition, because in the end, that's how you have to get it done and to move this thing through congress. by going in position, say i want all loopholes and deductions gone as sensitive as some of them might be and politically treacherous as some might be. it is a negotiation. you have to get the work of the people done. you have to start some place. that's what i gripe about today's world. we're not doing the work of the people. we're finger pointing and engaging in hyper charged rhetoric. you have to put something on the table that at least stands a chance. loopholes deductions gone. that will be a negotiation at

some point. a fierce negotiation, no doubt about it. you have to have a position going in that speaks to where you think you want to be. in the end, you have to raise enough revenue to reinvest it in the code so you can get the rate down. i would love to end the exercise right where i put it on the table, which would be 8%, 14% and 23%. it doesn't have the sound of 9-9-9. i admit but it is doable and achievable and cleans out to cob webs and we need a cleaning of house. >> let's talk about the negotiation, every one of these negotiations have started -- where they finish frequently is the problem. maybe you can clarify and speak for the republicans on this. one of the challenges is we don't want tax increase. it is unclear what is meant by a tax increase.

some people say we don't want a tax rate increase. in fact we want a lower tax rate. others say no tax revenue increase. in the negotiation, how far are you willing to go if you're going to this tradeoff of some of these marginal tax rates are maybe not going to be able to -- are they going to be added back on which means you have to increase your rate. are you looking for a tax revenue neutrality? are we looking at increasing it through tax reform? is that something we negotiate when compromising? >> you go in with certain principles. you can do it on a revenue neutral basis. second of all, i'm willing to raise revenues both on the individual income side and on the corporate side by phasing out corporate welfare. we can't afford it anymore.

i think it gums up and distorts the system such that we just need to get smart about the 21st century. phase out to subsidies. for some, going that far is too far but that would be one of the principles by which i would guide tax reform. reinvest it back into the code and allow that to lower the rate and take it forward in that sense. but i would also use a bipartisan coalition. if you could put one together to help drag it home such as we saw around the simpson bowles commission. i would use the business count in make the argument about what this means for job creation. i think if you can make a valid argument about what tax reform means to refiring our engines of growth around job creation, that argument is going to carry the day because to prime the pump, we need jobs.

we need to expand our economic base and pay bills. that's theme that must revail throughout. we're doing this because we haven't touched tax since 1986. we're doing this because our leading competitor countries have cut -- dealt can taxes and marketing measures and trade liberalizeation. we haven't. we have to act or we're going to see the end of the american century by 2050. that's too high a price for anybody to be paying. >> we have an expenditure side problem. revenue neutral, as we know, we are increasing at a high rate. the key contributor driver there is going to be the future -- the mounting cost of medicare. we have increase in longevity. that is a good thing.

the cost of health care. the left votes for this if they say we can get this under control. they pick what the most cost-effective means are of medical procedures that medicare should cover. everything else you have to do out of pocket. again, oversimplifying again, we're going to a voucher and grow it at a fairly low level. that's going keep it under. again, you don't have to buy my simpification. we have to do something on the expenditure side. what is your vision of broadly of reducing expenditures through medicare?

>> first, we have to start with the assumption that all options are on the table. that if you're going to this and do it right, which is to say target $4 trillion to $6 trillion, which you have to do. we have no choice. you look at the numbers, it is a painful exercise. we have no choice. you hit the wall if you don't do it right. by 2020 just based on current revenue forecasts. you have medicare and social security interest payments. that's it. you're out of gas. we can't not act. we have got to do something. sew so everything on the tainl, including med -- on the table, including medicare and the department of defense. what paul ryan has put on the table for medicare i think is valid. i think it is a realistic approach. the premium support system, not a voucher that he tailbacks

about. the by fur indication -- that he talks about, the bifurcation that he talks about. where we need to go. we need to figure out overall how to take costs out of health care. i don't mean to oversimplify it. when you figure this is a $3 trillion industry, any expert will tell you half of that number, $1.5 trillion is super lewis in needless spend superfluous spending. they know what the costs are, they know what the options are, they are not walking into an office where a foreign language is being spoken. nobody knows the of health care. this is a backdrop to medicare

but totally relevant. in the longer term, i think it all will mean something. we also have to recognize that the world in 1965 was different than it is today in terms of eligibility age, i think we can move that out. perhaps even a means testing component, as i would say with social security. which in 1935, you know, the average age was 61.7 years. so the assumption was you work for 40 years. that's a pretty good deal. today we're upside down. you work for 20 and want to take out 40. that doesn't work. you have fewer people paying in than taking out. we're living longer. one thing we have picked up since 1,900 thanks to science and medicine, we picked up three decades of life. somebody born in 1,900 versus today. we have to nix lines on social

security and tie it to real wage growth opposed to the consumer price index. i think you can deal with a big part of the problem by doing that. it is a shared sacrifice. the president is going to have to call on the nation to step up and realize it will be a shared sacrifice. beyond that, i think he can push up eligibility age to maybe the 80th-90th percentile of the average page of life on a sliding scale. i think we can save social security and deliver on the original attempt and promise back like in 1935. this is all about leadership and political will. but i believe it is the will of the people. the will of the people in this country now to get our debt and our spending in line with that which is sustainable, something where 19% of g.d.p. opposed to

23%, 24%. it also has to be made into an argument about national security. for me, that is an argument. that is when your debt becomes 70% of g.d.p., soon to be 80%, whatever that number is today, you just don't grow anymore. when you don't grow, you can't compete. there is some competitive aspects to this that really do make it a national security argument for the american people and then you look around the bend at where greece is at 170%, the g.d.p., italy at 120%. i remember my negotiations with japan 10 years ago when i was a lead negotiator. nonperforming loans. structural barriers and impediments. the system that made it impossible to start the new enterprise there. today they are entering their third decade of lost growth. i say look around the bend, folks, if you don't want to address the spending, you can

kind of see where it takes you over time. >> i wanted to shift gears and ask one more question before i open it up. you obviously have extensive exposure to china. a little bit of a change of pace. governor romney, i think he said as his first day as president he would put china as a currency manipulator. i think this bill passed the senate essentially saying the same thing, proposing to impose tariffs to china on exchange rate issues. what are the promise and maybe possible perils of strong economic growth in china for the u.s.? >> first of all, let's call it what it is. it is pandering. it sounds good and you can get an applause out of the group when you say we're going to slap a tariff on china and go to war with china.

the reality is different. what are you going to do? second of all, you start slapping on a tariff and the chinese are going to turn around and say remember the quantitative easings parts one and two, you guys did the same thing. we'll slap a tariff on you guys. i thought this is not a good thing, you know president has to do what he wants to do. what happens after the penalty was assessed? i don't know. i can't remember what it was. $1.7 billion or $2 billion. the chinese came up with a similar countermeasure toward our chicken parts. completely disrupting our poultry producers. that is just the way the game is played these days. recognize the reality and we're back to the united states and china sitting down in a negotiation and grinding it out.

because it sunt a uni dimensional relationship. it is not just about currency. you have north korea, weaponizeation in iran, the pakistan element, global economic rebalancing. you have got new energy technologies. you have a whole lot of things that you're trying to carve into a broad based dialogue with the chinese. like it or not, you're left with the reality that you have got to sit down and grind it out at the negotiating table. same thing that i think president reagan discovered. i see him who remembered those days. i went with president reagan in the early 1980's to china. he campaigned in 1980 on i believe it was withdrawing our diplomatic recognition from 1979 and rerecognizing taiwan only to find once you become president

that even back in those early days to get things done, you have to factor in the chinese. it is a relationship now that will require going forward a dialogue at the presidential level that is consistent, that is uniform, that is done a couple of times a year, not something that is on the margin s of apec or g-20 but a consistent dialogue that lays out our strategic interests in the region and allows us to pull out their strategic interest and have a much deeper dialogue than we have been able to achieve. through that, trying somehow, some way to infuse shared values into a relationship that for 40 years has been based on shared interests. we need a whole lot more in the way of shared values.

blended into this to give it the staying power that we're going to need for the first and second largest economies in the world we're going to make this relationship compete despite all the challenges and inevitably we have. that will be bradening the day log on political reform. -- dialogue on political reform. it will carry some challenges for us. we need to expand it around human rights and things like the role of the internet in society. religious liberties. these are all things that we should be expanding our debate around. why? because you have got a whole young generation of fomings coming up. 500 million -- folks coming up. 500 million internet users and bloggers having these discussions anyway. you have the raw material in china increasingly to have these discussions and picked up and taken seriously like never

before. they don't like what they are reading in the blogs and know they are going to have to make some accommodations in the years to come. if not, there is a strain wreck in the making -- train wreck in the making. >> let's say we open it up from the crowd. i think we have microphones up. >> thanks. i write a literal report. i want to ask you a question about the one thing we really haven't talked about today. among others, i guess i should say. you make a very persuasive case about what should be done in the realm of economics and fiscal policy and your experience at ustr and as governor and ambassador in china, of course suggests that you bring a lot to the table on that equation.

but if you were to become president, what changes as you come to a town and meet something called the congress, and we know, i think it is fair to say, we know for a fact that rule 22 in the senate, the stranglehold that the rules committee has in the house, the extent to which a regular order has become an oxymoron up on the hill, suggestses that no matter how well prepared and how thoughtful the next president of the united states is, he or she is going to have to deal with an institution that holds the purse strings and is really in a state that makes it difficult for good governance to take place. i would be interested in hearing

you talk about two things. one, the extent which you thought about those structural problems that the congress deals with and the second, more important one is what role could a president and presidential leadership play in bringing some change so that governance could -- good governance could have a chance in the country again? >> we have to figure out ways to enhance trust in the system. i don't have an easy answer for you. but when i was reelected, i see tommy with the newspaper, he will remember when i was reelected in 2008, we got just shy of 80% of the vote. the turnout among the young people was such that i was a little discouraged about the future of our system. i thought what do you do to enhance believability in our democracy to get kids, younger

generation of folks more invested in our future and what is driving the apathy? is it campaign financing? the role of lobbyists in society? is it ethics in government? lack of term limits? whatever the case might be. we put some people to the test to come up with a report that would outline maybe some steps that could be taken. shortly after that, i was taken to china. i don't know if there was a connection to that report or not but i think the same thing needs to happen with the next president. i think we first and foremost need to build a level of trust in the system between the people and who they little bit and the fact that we're running on empty today between the people and the institutions of power concerns me greatly. congress, the executive branch, wall street, we're running on empty as it relates to trust which is a precarious place for this country to find itself in. whatever happens, you get all

the policy stuff right, how do you build trust in the system? that has got to be a conversation that we have as a people in this country. the fundamental changes that we bring about, you have to look at it to enhance overall trust. i do believe when you're elected and i understand the structural problems you're talking about, gives me a headache every time i think about it. is there a way around it? i think the reality is the president has about two years to get something done, kind of like a governor. there are certain rhythms. in the reality, you have two years. when the door closes. i think that's where the president finds himself today. people have tuned out. he had two years. it didn't happen during those two years, the door closes. recognizing that reality, you're elected president, you go up to capitol hill and you say, it is a very simple congressional agenda that i've got for you, folks. i've got three things that i

want to get done. i know we have two years in which to do it. it is the will of the people to make it happen. they have spoken in the election cycle. i believe what motivates congress more than anything else is the will of the people. when they speak out in an election cycle, there is movement. the question is how long is that movement sustained before it drops into a state of complete paralysis? what do you find? mischief making on capitol hill. nothing getting done. no leadership driving the agenda. for two years, congress, all i want you to do is work with me on three things that will fire the engines of growth in this country. it is totally doable. here is the tax proposal i'm putting on the table. here are the regulatory reform measures that i would like to see done. they will deal with health care, obama care. certain aspects of financial services reform. we have a two, you know, too big

to fail problem in this country with the banking system. i don't know where to begin there but to recognize that it is lingering out there. we have to somehow address it. third, some simple steps toward energy independence. step one for me would be looking at somehow dismantling the distribution system that gives preference to one product, oil. they own the system. when i drove a natural gas car as governor, i never thought you could drive a natural gas car until somebody came up and introduced the concept. what was the factor for me and anyone else who wants to use an alternative fuel? you're not on the grid. there is no phillips station. if we are going to become independent, we have to start with the structural problems that underlie it all. i want to take a step toward

energy independence that will begin to allow our country to build a grid into the future. we know in the years ahead, we're going draw from the sun and wind. that's where technology is going to take us. that is inevitable. what i'm worried object is what we do in ways that are affordable and compatible with market reality and ways we draw if that which has an abundance and are affordable. those are the three things i would put before congress. and say we have two years. the clock is running. let's deliver for the american people. >> let's get one more question. keep the question kind of short also. >> >> thank you first off for bringing some pragmatic views to the campaign here. i wanted to physical up. earlier you mentioned three- dimensional chess in the foreign policy arena.

i'm concerned about the act budget control acts coming down tubes there. i'm wondering if you can give us your perspective how we balance our international policy with our defense spending? >> i have two boys in the navy. i think about this from time to time. about what their world is going look like. what concerns me today? and leads me to believe that we have to shake things up a little bit is we have -- we have a bit of an overhang from the cold war in if second decade of the 21st century. 700 facilities in 60 different countries. we have 50,000 troops in germany. in 20 different installations. i would say folks, the russians are not coming anymore. we have 100,000 in afghanistan,

nation building when our nation needs to be built. when we need to pivot from a counterinsurgency to a counterterror effort there which doesn't take 100,000 troops. you need special forces on the ground and some training with the local afghan national army. let's be real about that. long-term as we think about defense in our national security structure, afghanistan is not our nation's future. iraq is not our nation's future. our nation's future is how well prepared we are to compete in the 21st century. that is economics and education. and that's the asia-pacific region. where the most significant militaries will rise and for us not to recognize that, i think does us damage in terms of how we position ourselves for the future. so you have to say, if we have

foreign policy drives that will then inform our defense priorities, what should those be? number one for me would be -- and this is going to sound awfully corny from a foreign policy person but my first priority will be fixing our core. i think admiral mullen was right when he said debt is our biggest enemy. look no further than here at home. when we're not strong, we're not able to project those values of liberty, democracy, human rights and open markets. i've lived overseas when those values have been projected. it is an awesome thing to behold and it transforms people and history. we're not projecting today and that is part of the problem. so i would say job number one is fixing our core from national security standpoint. that's why the jobs thing is so critical. number two, i want a foreign policy aided by a defense

structure that puts economics first. so if the view from beijing, where i was the last couple of years is we have 100,000 troops in afghanistan, we protect the land, the chinese go in and take the mining concession, i say there is something wrong with this picture. we need to be driving foreign policy first and foremost by economics. what plays back to strengthening our core and creating jobs here at home? trade alliances. investment relationships. international economic relationships. far more aggressively than we're doing today. third, we can't forget that this asymmetric threat called terror is out there and it will be for as far as the eye can see into the 21st century. i don't know that we need more carrier battle groups or more sophisticated advanced weapon systems or we need more to add on to the b-1 and b-2 bomber

fleets. we need a time to collect and analyze and share intelligence. it will be the network and the subsidiaries of terror that we will be up against. and then whole a.o.r. from coastal california to the indian ocean will be a feeder that we need to pay some serious attention to and i believe that that should be driven by a new network of friends and allies. said this tongue in cheek the other day but i kind of mean it. i'll consider the job done when we full u.s.s. ronald reagan into cameron bay. we have some real opportunities in the asia pacific region to bolster alliances and new ones. my defense priorities would be

built around those realities. what i think also an understanding that the army can probably be taken down from maybe 485,000 maybe to 450,000 supplemented by national guards troops. i can see how that would fit in. also by purchasing procurement practices in the pentagon. you have to lift up the hood of the car and say who isn't the machinery running as efficiently as it used to? we had that number at 1,000 people. we were producing 100 ships a year. today we have it considerably larger and we're producing less than 10 ships a year. there is something there that doesn't look right. you know? the red tape. the systems that are in place that have just bogged us down.

that needs to be looked at and i think seriously reformed. so the two areas, the strategic concept around defense planning following economics, following counterterrorism but with the focus on the asia-pacific a.o.r. has been important to our long-term maritime capability. submarines will be included in that mix. we need more in that regard and an aspect of pentagon reform that would say we have got to be able to do it more efficiently and we have got to be able to stretch the taxpayer dollar better in terms of what we're getting by way of return. you can get some really good minds together that i think would be able to lift up the hood of the car and makes some fixes that would be very important for the american people. >> i just wanted to thank you you again for coming. really appreciate it. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you.

thank you. thank you. >> i just want to ask that everyone remain seated while the governor departs and then we'll open up the doors. >> thank you. >> see more videos of the candidates at c-span's website for campaign 2012 from recent events to the earliest parts of their campaigns. read the latest comments from

candidates and political reporters from social media sites and links to c-span's media partners in iowa, new hampshire and south carolina. all at c-span.org/campaign 2012. >> in a few moments, a forum on state voting law changes and voters rights hosted by house democrats and in 2 1/2 hours, more discussion of jobs and the economy from maryland governor martin o'malley and jon huntsman. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we'll talk about politics and the republican candidates for president with charles black, the former advisor to presidents reagan and george h.w. bush. democratic representative sheila jackson lee of texas discusses federal spending and the work of the joint deficit reduction

committee. and faith schwartz, executive director of the hope now alliance. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the c-span.org homepage is now easier to use. the new design features 11 video choices making it easier for you to watch today's events, live and recorded. there is a section to watch programs like "washington journal," book tv and american history tv and the contenders. you can find quickly where to watch on cable and satellite systems across the country at the all new c-span.org. >> house democrats held a forum today on changes to state voting laws and voters' rights. this 2 1/2-hour meeting is chaired by john conyers is of

michigan. >> good afternoon. the committee will come to order. i see all of our distinguished witnesses to this forum our present -- are present, and i'm very pleased to a knowledge the chair of the congressional black caucus as well as our distinguished colleagues from ohio. we have other members on the way. and i wanted to merely start this discussion off

underscoring the constitutional significance of the right to good. because after all, if you do not have that, calling it anything else but a democracy is a understand -- misunderstanding the deep, historical significance of having to choose who governs them in any kind of national setting. now, the problem we have been encountering is that there have been so many changes to the voting rights laws, both federal and state rights, that this forum is necessary. for example, we have had 16 state laws that have impaired,

in my view, the citizens' rights to vote. examples -- a law that would limit voting by requiring photo identification. alabama, kansas, rhode island, south carolina, tennessee, texas, and go by the way, do we have the report here? who is -- what you mean, is this being recorded or not? ok. recalling a total identification were voting by law -- photo identification for

voting by law, tennessee, texas, wisconsin, and mississippi. we have laws that exclude specifically forms of identification that have usually been significant, such as standard -- student i.d. and social security cards. this is by law, south carolina, tennessee, and texas. we have a law that declares a showing of proof of citizenship as a condition for voter registration. alabama, kansas, and tennessee. we have laws that limit or eliminate early voting opportunities in five states -- florida, georgia, ohio,

tennessee it, and west virginia. and we have two states that have eliminated same-day registration and limit voter mobilization efforts. so thanks to the brennan center , we have documentary evidence that some 5 million citizens are being negatively impacted by restrictive laws. and i do not want to take the place of the witnesses, but since i have been doing this laundry list i just want you to know that the reason for these

laws have been to fight voter fraud. you know, where people actually try to vote more than once and under false identities. you know how pervasive this is, it's going on all of the place, and it requires our leaders to take some action on an. -- on it. and so what do we do? after five-year investigation, we have turned up less than 90 cases. and further we found 19 cases have been eligible voting -- of it in eligible voting at the state level over the last nine years. so this is a serious problem, folks.

we've got to deal with this problem and we're going to find out how best to do it. we would welcome all the distinguished witnesses, including the naacp leader who was not on time in coming to the hearing. [laughter] but we will strike that from the record. the record will not show that,. >> the record will show that he did not have as federal id to enter the floor. -- his photo id to enter the floor. >> ellen should use our friend from maryland and on the judiciary committee -- i will introduce our friend from maryland, steny hoyer, for his comments. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i will speak on behalf of

the minority leader and myself as the minority whip. i thank you for holding this hearing. i'm happy to join my colleagues at this hearing, including congressman conyers, who has been a giant for the rights for some many of our citizens. i want to thank you for holding this important hearing. with a federal election under your way, it is right to look into possible voter suppression taking place. and i said possible. we know that the other suppression has been taking place, is taking place, and is planned. the right to vote is fundamental to our entire system of government. and the ability of every american to have his or her

voice heard in washington, in the state house, and in their local communities is absolutely essential. that right is under threat. nationwide state legislatures have recognized that inhibiting eligible voters from casting ballots -- there is some sunlight. the voters of ohio have had decided that that was not what they thought was proper. that was a victory. that was not the case everywhere in the united states. they're making it harder and harder to vote by mandating certain forms of photo identification, which many turn voters do not have. they are time consuming and expensive to obtain free for college students, it means not being able to show student id. when we were meeting in my conference room, a student id is

not acceptable in some places but a concealed weapon license is. i know that there is a difference, a very substantial difference, but i'm not sure what that is in terms of identification. on lettuce pre-election that is the standard, project unless it is pre-election -- unless it is predilection that is the standard. americans whose names are still slightly spelled differently present new challenges. steny has been spell lot different ways over the course of my life. we are dealing with that to the past, not the future. one florida high school teacher

tried to register voting age students and now faces thousands of dollars in fines for not filling out the forms within 48 hours. not even enough time for them to arrive by mail. she dedicates her career to teaching the value of democracy. she is locked in her efforts to get her students to participate in democracy. as a result of rules such as this one, the league of women voters -- i don't know if they are represented here, the league is represented here -- which in my lifetime, ms. macnamara has always been in the forefront in a non-partisan, bipartisan way of assuring that people have the right to vote. they have stopped registering voters in the state of florida. how sad that is for america, not just for florida, not just for

the voters of florida, but for the voters everywhere in america. at the same time, states are rolling back opportunities for early voting. very frankly, when i take up on tuesday to vote, no one talks my pay. -- no one talks my pay. . might pay. that is not always the case it is facilitating a lot of people have trouble getting off on tuesday. busy working families with children, seniors that cannot wait in long lines, early voting is often the only opportunity to cast their ballot. i worked with some of the rest to be honest. i was the chief sponsor of the help america vote act after the

2000 election to facilitate an ease and to assist people in voting. and to make sure that their vote counted. that seemed to me a primary responsibility for any of us in public office. we're witnessing a concerted effort to place new obstacles in from of minorities, low-income families, and young people who seek to exercise their right to vote. the lawmakers claim date they are protecting an epidemic of voter fraud. many americans believe that there is an epidemic. we just saw paul and head of both -- saw a poll that said yes by almost two-one. photo identification is fine. but if you ask them, when was the last instance of fodder fraud in your community or in york county or in your state, there would be hard-pressed to come up with an example -- they

would be hard-pressed to come up with an example. the right to vote should and must not depend on the politics of the day but on eligibility. i'm glad the committee will be hearing from witnesses who contested fight to the effect these rules are having and will have on the moral right and constitutional right of our citizens to vote. many have been hindered from casting their vote because of these rules pre this problem is not abstract. there are real people, many who voted many times in the past, but to now have essentially had their right to vote taken away. a poll tax by another name would smell as vile. earlier this month, i joined with hundreds of other house democrats and a little off 56 secretaries of state urging them to protect access to the ballot. the chairman, let wartell working closely with you, with the congressional black caucus,

the spanish caucus, and every other person in the congress of the united states who would not want me to stand at the box on the floor of the house and say i want to see your funnel id -- your photo id or some other indication. thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i think all the witnesses for their efforts not just in this testimony but their efforts on a continuing basis to assure that every american now has the right to and is assisted and urged in facilitated in castanet vote. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, steny hoyer. the majority leader formally and a stellar member of the civil rights movement, going not only throughout his entire congressional career, but even prior to that. and he served with distinction

in the statehouse. thank you for that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i now turn to the chairman of the congressional black caucus, the one and only emanuel cleaver who is in his fourth term in the house of representatives, who is a -- well, i should say that he is a licensed minister. we have a lot of preachers. but he is a pastor. how he maintains his triple role as congressman, as chairman of the black caucus, and as church on top of that is beyond me. but we are honored that he is here with us today and we recognize him. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for organizing and

holding this hearing. i think that you are having a hearing on one of the most significant civil-rights issues of our time. this is a very solvable rights issue. i am here today, mr. chairman, to express the deep and abiding concern that we of the cbc and people of goodwill are having with this year's onslaught of voter suppression laws, which have not so ironically arrived in time for the 2012 election. early voting days have been cut short. different identification requirements have been implemented. proof of citizenship is required. all of these policies are statistically proven to impact people of color disproportionately.

all claims have been made that these laws are designed to eliminate voter fraud, mr. chairman, i firmly believe that these laws will do the worst thing that can be done in a democracy -- discourage citizens from voting. 40 years ago, the congressional black caucus was founded to positively influence the course of events for african-americans and others of similar experience and situation. in the years since, we've earned the moniker that conscience of the congress. because of our unyielding commitment to our communities and our country, we know that our mission is to help our country become a more perfect union. 40 years after our founding, which boasts the largest membership roster in history. strong,w 43 members representing a contingent a of over 9000 african-american

elected officials all over this country. i say with absolute certainty that our numbers have grown in large part because of the enforcement of the voting rights act and laws that ensure election protection and parity at the polls for america's elections. in 2009, one of our members, barack obama, was sworn in as the first african american, the 44th president of the united states of america. throughout the united states, dozens of new laws have been proposed that would restrict, we believe, voter participation. given the lack of evidence of voter fraud and our nation, it is clear these laws do more to suppress the rights of voters than to safeguard our voting system. as elected officials, whether local, state, or federal, it is our obligation to not only

encourage our constituents to vote, but to ensure the voting process is easy. we should not and cannot stand idly by as states enact laws that disproportionately harm people of color. youth, low-income individuals, the elderly, and a host of others. state governments across the country enacted an array of new laws making it harder to register or to vote. some states required voters to show government issued photo identification. often of a type that as many as one in 10 voters do not have. other states have cut back on early voting, process disproportionately used by millions of disabled, elderly, and minority americans. two states -- iowa and florida -- reversed earlier reforms and once again disenfranchised

millions who have past criminal convictions but are nonetheless taxpaying citizens. as of today, 34 states have introduced laws that would require voters to present total identification to good. 14 states have enacted some type of restrictive voting law. 12 states have introduced legislation that requires an individual to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote. in nine states have introduced bills to produce early voting. and i hosted of missouri, a voter identification vote will be on the 2012 ballot for voter approval, requiring them to present a final identification when putting in person. already stores have been circulating a lot of citizens turned away because these overly restrictive laws. mr. chairman, i have been fortunate.

i lived to see my great- grandfather reaches 103rd birthday. the rev. noaa albert cleaver -- noah albert cleaver lived and died in texas for because of the restrictive voting laws in texas and because of the poll tax, my grandfather lived 103 years in this country without voting. 103 years without voting. while african-americans may have gained the right to vote with enactment of the 15th amendment, with the jim look -- with the jim crow laws and discriminatory literacy tests, which were passed as poorly

revealed -- poorly veiled attempts to restrict people to vote until the voting rights act was passed in 1965. students and young americans, old enough to be drafted into the war, were not able to fill the participate in our democracy. mr. chairman, in conclusion, i grew up in texas. i graduated from a and in university. purdue has become an all-black town for a lot of reason. texas a&m is only 40 miles away. and purdue was built as the negro texas a&m. the students there cannot vote with their student id.

however, if you are a gun owner, you can show your gun registration and vote. you would have to be a very mean-spirited and ecological warped person -- and ecological -- idealogically warped person to believe that this is helping. >> thank you for that impassioned statement. i am proud of the fact that your history and a remembrance of it is going to motivate many, many people to whom this subject

matter may not be nearly as familiar with as you are. and i thank you very much. congresswoman marcia fudge of the 15th district of ohio serves on both the science and state and tech committee, an agricultural committee. she has been here for two terms as a member of congress, but we cannot help but recall, as our whip steny hoyer does, that issue is steep -- that she was chief of staff for the replete stephanie jones ferment -- for the late stephanie jones for many years. the commitment of both her and our former member is evident in

her presence here today and we recognize her at this time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to thank our distinguished panel for being here today. it is time that the american people hear from more than just toss that there is a concerted effort across this country -- from more than just us that there's a concerted effort across this country to undo our right to vote. it is delivered in by design. from ohio to wisconsin, from flower that -- from florida, texas, the franchise is under attack in this country. a certain predetermined segment of americans are being targeted. young people, the elderly, are disabled, and our minorities will all feel the repercussions of this concerted effort. there's nothing new about that tactics we're seeing today if you lived at least as long as i have lived.

they said that tactics that have been used for years to compromise the franchise. what we call the poll tax 50 years ago is now having to buy a voter id card today. legislation passed for proposed in the state of ohio, my home, and a number of other states as ended sunday voting. think about that. ohio republican legislature has voted to reduce not only sunday voting but voting early from what currently was 35 days each year go down to 16 days. in 2008, african-american voters accounted for 22% of early voters. 31% of sunday voters. latinos accounted for 22% of sunday's voting. minorities who work long hours or -- all we can do not get time off need the flexibility that early voting in sunday's voting provides. on saturdays and sundays, but

for election days, people of faith across the country remind their parishioners to vote. for those who are orchestrating this voter suppression effort, they know full well the importance of early voting in sunday's voting. they know that minorities in particular will be disproportionately impacted by these laws. i was among those who fought a lot of's voters oppression bill. -- ohio's butter suppression law. -- voter suppression laws. we put so much pressure on our legislature that they decided to delay moving forward with the legislation. along with my colleagues, i have remained active and vigilant here by introducing legislation organizing efforts in which you

have join me in and house speeches at the request of our whip. i will continue to be a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves because we cannot afford to be silent. all and with the words of dr. martin luther king that said that the ultimate measure of a man is not whether he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but when he stands at times of challenge and controversy. we are indeed in times of challenge and controversy. the underrepresented and those who have traditionally been disenfranchised are once again under attack. i thank you for your work and afford to your testimony. >> thanks, congresswoman feith, for your moving opening statement. without objection, we will include into the record the statements of representative sheila jackson lee of texas, a member of the house judiciary

committee, representative -- that chair of the hispanic caucus, and a former member of the judiciary committee, and representative john lewis, who is the foremost civil-rights advocate in the congress at this time. and so we turn to this incredible list of witnesses and we start off with the head of the league of women voters of the united states. she is a lawyer, a former district attorney, and has done an incredible job in terms of voter education and getting people registered. the amazing thing is that she is

a dekalb county, georgia resident. she has a lot of experience about what it takes to break down the barriers of segregation and getting people, not just registered to vote, but participating in the electoral process. her statement will be put into the record as will all the witnesses. and we invite you to begin. [inaudible] >> press that button. to get it might help if we turn the microphone on. how want to thank you, mr. conyers, for holding this discussion. it will help to focus our nation's attention on voter suppression legislation that we eat in the league of women voters as all the rest of us

have seen sweeping this country. particularly over the last year. the right to vote and have your vote counted is the very foundation of our democracy. and today is under attack. my name is elizabeth macnamara and i am president of the league of women voters of the united states. this year the league actively oppose the voter suppression legislation in 21 states. we were successful in protecting the vote in 13 of those states, but the remaining states did create new and in some cases on insurmountable barriers to the polls. today we are experiencing an assault on voters. this is one of the greatest and self inflicted threats to our democracy, to our way of governing in our lifetime. these new laws threaten to silence the vote -- the voices of those least heard and rarely listen to in this country, the poor, the elderly, racial and ethnic minorities, the young, and the differently able.

these new laws require federal identification or proof of citizenship in order to vote. they restrict third party registration drives, a decrease in early voting, and eliminate registration on voting day. the league of women voters opposes these news laws because they risk disenfranchising millions of eligible voters. there will cost millions of dollars to implement. and there is no evidence that there is a need for such draconian measures. in 2011 alone, we have seen an exponential increase in the numbers of new voter suppression laws being implemented at the state level. as you have so eloquently noted, in eight states, alabama, kansas, mississippi, rhode island, south carolina, tennessee, texas, if and wisconsin, new restrictive identification laws have been passed by the legislature for the voter. three states passed laws requiring proof of citizenship as a prerequisite to voting.

two states, florida and texas, have made it more difficult for groups like the league of women voters to register voters. in five states, florida, my own state of georgia, ohio, tennessee, and west virginia, have passed legislation that would shorten or eliminate the period of early voting. in addition, we've seen new suppression laws passed in michigan, ohio, minn., va., and pennsylvania and we could see that before the 2012 election. these laws have added new bricks to the wall of obstacles some say are on their way to the ballot box. these laws are confusing, time consuming, and cost prohibitive for many citizens, including some who had been exercising their legal right to vote for decades and are now uninsured if they can jump high enough to get to the ballot box. one example comes from tennessee where miss virginia lassiter, 91 years old, has voted and worked on campaigns for the past 70 years.

but when she went to the tennessee department of motor vehicles to get a photo identification so that she could continue to exercise her right to vote, she saw a line of 100 people in front of her. the place to sit, no assistance from state workers to accommodate our needs, even though she did ask for help bridge was physically unable to wait in a long line without sitting down. thus she left with no other option and departed without getting hurt photo id. women in general an elderly women in a particular are being disproportionately harmed by the new laws. in some instances, citizens voting for decades are required to obtain birth certificates which some elderly people do not have since they were born at home. and their wedding licenses in order to prove who they are. in most cases, there are costs associated with getting a birth certificate and a marriage license. this has become more complicated if you were born on married in a

state in which you are not currently living. an example of this problem is 96. -- 96-year-old dorothy cooper born before women had the right to vote in the united states. on with a plethora of documents, including rent receipts, curb voter registration card, and her birth certificate, ms. cooper attempted to obtain a photo id. however her birth certificate had her maiden name on it and thus the court denied her request for identification she letter stated on msnbc that she did not have any problems voting under jim crow laws. in wisconsin, a memo here from the department of transportation officials came to light showing that although the state will provide federal identification for free, the individual must pacifically ask for a free id or they will be charged. -- specifically asked for a free aguilar they will charge. these not -- these new laws not

only target the elderly but the young people as well. in south carolina and texas, they do not accept student id. but it is interesting in taxes that they will accept the concealed carry permit for a firearm. all believe worries most about those who will be disenfranchised by new restrictive laws, we are also concerned about the fiscal impact of these new government programs on the cash strapped states. but like the requirements are prime example of wasteful use of that -- though it like the p regionhot -- photo id are prime examples of waste will use of taxpayer dollars. we are also seeing an assault on another front, a third party registration drives. this year the florida legislation passed a new law

that required volunteers conducting voter registration to be held personally and financially liable if they do not complete -- do not deliver completed forms to the election supervisor within 48 hours. fines could be levied of the $1,000 per person. we could not as volunteers to take a significant financial risk. the league of women voters has fared has suspended their voter registration drive in the state because of the financial risk associated with the new law. organizations such as the leak are crucial to make sure that voter registration is available to every voter, but the facts show conclusively that third party registration efforts are crucial for minorities. in 2004, 15% of african- americans and hispanic registrants haven't registered as a result of an organized drive. -- have been registered as a result of an organized drive. another former represent --

suppression is cutting back on an early voting. florida and a high output -- specifically targeted early voting on sunday. the greatest impact may be on people of color and hispanics to tend to vote in disproportionate numbers on sunday. the league of women voters calls on state legislators to repeal and reject the full range of voter suppression methods. if the states are unwilling or unable to protect the rights of every eligible citizen to vote, the federal government must then to ensure these rights are protected. we call on congress and on all americans to join the league of women voters in of applying pressure on the department of justice, urging them to cover this. we ask for your support in our ongoing efforts to fight back voter suppression legislation and to repeal existing voter

suppression laws in the state. we ask you to continue to conduct investigations into the real-life impact these laws have on citizens and their right to vote. after the voting rights act was signed into law, dr. king mentioned or made a speech and noted that it was not just the overt impact of jim crow laws but also the atmosphere of fear and intimidation that was created by these laws. today we are in a situation where there same atmosphere is being produced across the country by laws that create an atmosphere that says voters are not welcome here. thank you very much for your opportunity to speak. >> if thank you, attorney macnamara. the league of women voters, we know, has registered countless numbers of people and thought discriminatory processes that existed -- and discriminatory

processes -- fought discriminatory processes that existed. and you are being prescriptive. we could examine this all afternoon that the question is, what are we as people, as citizens, as organizations, and they congress, as committees -- what are we going to do? because the time is on us and is running out. now the brennan center has been doing incredible work, and added said is as deputy director of the democracy program, our next witness, lawrence norden. he has written books, innumerable articles, he manages is anennan center's blog, adjunct professor at the new york university school of law,

and i have got a pretty long biography on him that we will put into the record. the important thing is that he is here representing the brand organization. we welcome you at this time, sir. >> thank you, chairman conyers. and all the members for holding today's forum. for those who do not know, the brennan center is a non-partisan think tank and public law institute based in new york university school of law. we focus on issues of democracy and justice. today i am going to share with you the findings of our study. a voter law changes in 2012. that study, as chairman conyers has already mentioned, documents the record number of bills and lost the restricted voting access this year. our report analyzed 21 new laws and executive actions in 14 states. as has already been mentioned, we found those new laws will

make it significantly more difficult for more than 5 million americans to vote next year. of the states that pass subs restrictions, they already account for more than 67% of the electoral college votes needed to win the presidency. there are 43 additional bills in 23 states around the country that would further restrict voting rights and are still pending. the most common restrictions fall into one of three categories. first, and we've heard all that about this car requiring specific forms of government- issued the the id in order to vote. second, government-issued -- requiring specific forms of government-issued id in order to vote. these laws do not solve reelection problems. they largely result from an

unhealthy politicization of the rules by which we run our elections. and unfortunately, they are drafted in a way that places an especially heavy burden on the poor, the elderly, minorities, students, and voters with disabilities. as has been mentioned, seven states have now passed laws that require voters to produce specific kinds of government- issued photo id to vote. a 11% of the voting age do not possess this type of identification prefer certain groups, those numbers are far worse prefer young people between the ages of 18 and 24, 25% of african-americans do not possess such id. 18% of citizens 65 and older do not possess such identification. were troubling, these laws are frequently drafted in a way that

makes it even harder for the specific groups to vote. there has been some mention made of the fact that texas and in addition tennessee will not allow the use of student id, and even from state institutions, but will allow the use of concealed carry can carry permits to good. abridgin-- gun carry permits to. less than 7.7% and african- americans were issued gun permits last year. as ms. macnamara mentioned, a new registration restrictions that have been passed around the country will also disproportionately harm people of color. the new law in florida has

forced many organizations, including the league of women voters, to seize registration drives. african-americans and latinos registered twice the rate in 2004 and 2008 under these drugs. the suspension of such drives will result in fewer minorities registered in florida next year. early voting cutbacks also have seen the target minority voters. as has been mentioned already, african-american and latino voters have disproportionately voted on sunday where it is available. congresswoman fudge gave us specifics in ohio and i will give you some statistics from florida. 33% of those who voted on the sunday before election day in florida were african-american. 24% were latino. that greatly exceeds the general population numbers and that

sacred this year part has ended early voting on the sunday before election. as congresswoman fudge mention, ohio passed a law that would have eliminated sunday early voting entirely. again, we're greatly for -- grateful for public forums like this. they can help me that those voters who are impacted by these changes can find ways to register and vote even with these laws. i would respectfully suggest a couple more things that congress can do. first of all, we are hearing calls for the elimination of the election assistance commission very diligent assistance commission is the only federal agency that exist to make sure that our elections are working. i think it would be a terrible message to the people of this country in the midst of this state-based assault on voting its members did not work to protect the eac to make sure that it continues to exist. >> if package times, -- if i

could just interrupt, there is a report at committee to do that. it will not pass the senate, and i have some questions and i, but you ought to know that the republican leadership and voted to eliminate it. it is the only election assistance commission and they suggested that it be merged with the federal election commission, which has nothing to do with the probity of election and everything with the probity of contributions. >> thank you. >> i would just wrap up. in my written testimony, i referred to a number of types of legislation that i am hopeful congress will work on that could make our elections more secure and more accurate. among the things that i include our legislation is to modernize our voter registration, the democracy registration act which chairman congress -- chairman

conyers is already introduced this year, but intimidation legislation, all these measures could provide us with needed baseline rules to prevent manipulation of state election rules in the future. thank you. >> thanks so much. we now have the campbells, mr. lee campbell and mrs. phyllis campbell. longtime voters from smyrna, tennessee. smyrna, tennessee. i'm sorry. i got my accent room. thanks. under tennessee new voter laws, registered voters may apply for a free voter id if they like other forms of total

lack otherion, -- forms of voter identification, but not the campbells. they went to roomhell trying to get registered to vote. >> it is a pleasure to be here. i'm phyllis campbell from smyrna, tenn., just as my has a family and my daughter back here. with the new laws, i needed to get out federal identification since i am over 60 and tennessee does not require photographs on id's. if you are over 60. people were lined up to the door. we thought maybe they had a special line for those who only one of the total. i will let him tell you the rest of the story. >> good afternoon.

chairman conyers, members of the committee, fellow residents of tennessee, representative cohen, before continue with the narrative, how like to introduce myself. my name is lee campbell and i am a native of lake city, calhoun county, iowa. i had a 42-year career in public education as a teacher and as a guidance counselor, both in iowa and in tennessee. i retired in 2006. i have never failed to vote in any election which i was eligible to cast a ballot. beginning with my first presidential vote on november 3, 1964 at truex cafe in somers,

iowa. now what -- now back to where phyllis left off. i approached the worker at the information desk at the driver's testing station and stated that my wife would appear and wanted to obtain the every voter photo identification. the person responded with a non- verbal sigh, indicating in effect ago, no, not that. kind of [sighing] then the worker suggested getting that typical of license for a fee of $8. cognizant of the fact that a senior citizen friend of ours mr. steve blacken ship of

murfreesboro in the previous month had paid the $8 fee, i replied, no, we want the threfre voter photo. the worker held up his finger to indicate just a moment. he went to three other people, and said that there would be no charge and to return to the line which consisted at that point of approximately 30 people. keep in mind, these 30 people are waiting in line just to get the information desk. i want to stay right now that paying the $8 fee was not the question. we could easily afford that. the point was that the tennessee legislature in passing this law had emphasized that the photo

was to be free. otherwise, in my opinion, the fee it charged could be considered a poll tax. when we reach the information desk again, the worker again reiterated that the wise choice was to get the po on the driver's license as opposed to getting up separate id photo has that entailed, and she said, too much paperwork. that meant for the 47,000 registered voters in tennessee who do not have a driver's license, 47,000 registered voters do not have a driver's license, there is time consuming paperwork involved. we then took our seats so that phyllis could wait for her photograph. the whole procedure to 58 minutes. i want to say at this point that the 58-minute wait did not

bother us, but we could readily understand that an elderly or handicapped person, the long wait in line could be daunting. from information that was published in our daily paper, the local drivers testing center during the last week of october, not even a month ago, charged a world war ii veteran the $8 fee for his duplicate license with a photograph. this tells me that unless a person stands their ground such as i did, the drivers testing center is going to charge the fee for the photograph. in fact, an official of the tennessee department of public safety stated to the press that the would be charged unless the applicant stated that he or she

wanted the free photo id. my question is, why else would a person be trying to get photo on their license if it was not to get the freeing photo id. they said ask in my opinion. the worker should ask if they are free -- here for the free photo id. one week ago today, i encountered another negative ramifications of this coming in my opinion, voter suppression religious question. i went to a business in smyrna, tennessee and was greeted by former teaching colleague. this person is approximately 80 years of age and uses a cane to aid in mobility. this person enquired if i was still politicking. this quickly lead to a discussion of the new law.

this person stated that voting for her was now out of the question in the future. the principal reason? she stated waiting in a long line in order to get the photograph, she felt, would not be very conducive. i then stated that i would be happy to drive said person to the driver's testing center in murfreesboro. i further stated that i had recently attended a meeting where the state director of elections -- not this was on november 1 -- or the state director of elections said there was now "express lines at the driver's testing centers for those needing a photo id only." as i earlier said, i am a native of iowa. since i am almost from missouri, the show me state, i would have

to see this to believe that. the express line. the person then stated that perhaps their relative would take her to the driver's testing center. whether this person ever votes again is highly speculative. another thing that concerns me about the new tennessean photo law is something that i learned that november 1 informational meeting in our county. the state director of the elections -- the state director of elections was in attendance and stated that out of the nearly 175,000 tennessee ends that need a photo id on their license or are registered to vote and do not have a license, only 2300 have obtained the free pohoto. this law went into effect july

1, it 2011. as of november 1, only 2300 have actually gotten the photographs. i think he would consider that to be progressing at a snail's pace. i hear that many of these people will be denied their right to vote in the future. in conclusion, i agree with something i read in the press recently in tennessee. this voter photo law is "exsolution in need of a problem." thank you very much. >> thank you so much for being here. can i ask miss becky campbell if she has anything to add about the subject matter that her dad and mom --

>> she is pretty shy. >> she is shy. ok, thanks. me, pops.don't tell have steve cohen of tennessee here as well as the former chairman of the crime subcommittee of the judiciary committee, the honorable bobby scott of virginia. we welcome all of you here. i turn now to hillary shelton -- hilary shelton, the vice president of the naacp who testifies before this committee. he lays the largest civil rights organization in the country.

and he is distinguishing himself in the naacp all the time that he has been before us. we welcome you here once again, sir. >> thank you very much. and good afternoon, congressman conyers. congressman floods, cleavers, scott, and whole year. -- hoyer. i am hilary shelton, senior vice president for policy. the naacp is the oldest and largest grassroots-based civil rights organization. we have advocated and worked against such obstacles as america's jim crow laws and the black coat. tragically our country which promotes itself as a beacon of democracy has seen a reversal in this century-old struggle in achieving this goal of one

person, one vote. this has been strategic and multifaceted and sadly targeted disproportionately at the very people who could use a louder, more consistent voice among our elected officials. many being hit are low-income americans, the elderly, students, and women. whether through shortened early voting periods or initiatives making it harder for the third parties to registered qualified voters, states are abridging the right to vote by millions of americans protect their -- by many americans. one lot has people that fly in the right of our vote to cast a free and unfettered vote as well

as to recently reauthorize 1965 voting rights act which mandates and no state or municipality shall in any way infringe on our right to vote. our supporters are initiatives -- they say to combat voter fraud, which studies have shown are not our problem. they are creating a barrier to keep up to 21 million americans who do not have government- issued photo id how the voting booth. the large number of these people are racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, for low-income americans. a full 25% of african-americans who would otherwise be eligible to vote do not have photo id photo. this creates new obstacles that into a modern-day poll tax by forcing people to pay for government identifications. they cannot easily obtain

documents such as passports, or naturalization papers. requirements for all voters to be presenting of photo id before casting a regular ballot will disproportionately disenfranchise african-americans and other minorities as well as -- elderlynd decibel and disabled as well as people who are less likely to carry a photo id. duet insult to injury, they would do little or nothing to prevent actual instances of voter fraud. nothing in the legislation discusses actual documented problems such as distributing false information about when and where abode, stuffing ballot box and, and tampering with registration most of which promoted by a corrupt election officials, not voters.

gov. dayton of minnesota and other governors have stopped days. we continue to oppose these offenses to democracy that add up to nothing more than a good old fashioned poll tax, just like those allied but the voting rights act of 1965. -- just as those banned by the voting rights act of 1965. this is an issue that continues to be critical to the naacp has nationally 5.3 american citizens are not -- 5.3 million american citizens are not allowed to vote because of criminal convictions. of those who have completed their sentences and live and work and raise families in their community spirit to disenfranchise -- in their communities.

nationwide, 13% of african- american men have lost the right to vote, are rated seven times the national average. 3 at 10 of these next generation of african-american men can expect to lose the right to vote at some point in their lifetime. given the vastly disproportionate impact, and specifically african-american man, it is hard for the naacp not to take these so-called public policy initiatives as an affront to the very core of our democratic values. as such, we will continue to support legislation such as the democracy restoration act which would restore the federal voting rights of all eligible americans once they leave prison. this year, 2011, we've seen several other blocks put up a state level which would disproportionately disenfranchise racial and et not minorities and the elderly. these include proof of

citizenship requirement, the elimination of same-day registration, foreshortening of voting periods, and the enactment of laws making it more difficult for nonpartisan third party organizations like the naacp to register voters. in my written testimony, i have gone into more debt about these attacks and our concerns about them. but for the times, i will not going to eminem. let me just take a quick moment to say that the naacp has solution to these growing problems. federal income the naacp supports a number of initiatives which would help defeat this trend of truncating america's democratically guaranteed voting rights. we strongly and consistently support legislation, the voting rights and technology in has been active to does 11, and similar legislation that would require early voting throughout the country with no excuse is required, allows same-day

registration nationally, allah butter casing, in which mail is sent to -- help law -- outlaw the scene, clarify and strengthen the is a provisional ballot thing, make voter intimidation and deception strongly punished by law, with more than just a slap on the risk, and establish process for reaching out to misinform the voters with accurate information to cast their vote in time plan and allow x offenders the opportunity to register and vote in federal law regulations without complication. we all sleep -- we also support another act. finally, the naacp is pleased to support two bills which were just introduced by congress ellison.

together these two bills will descend much of the damage which has been done over the past year by states in the arena of voting rights. one would predilection officials from acquiring individuals to provide photo id as a condition of attaining or casting a ballot in an election for federal office or by registering to vote in elections for federal office. the second build would require states to except same-day registration from any individual who wishes to vote in a federal election. the right of all those balls citizens to vote and have those votes count is the cornerstone of our democracy and is the fundamental civil rights guaranteed by our constitution. the naacp believe strongly that it is the obligation of the congress to ensure that everything that can be done will be done to ensure that every eligible american is allowed to

vote and to be sure that his vote will be counted. sadly our nation is riddled with efforts to curtail voter participation. even more tragically, this trend of suppression of minority bowed continues today. as reported by the brennan center, more than 5 million americans could be affected by the new laws already put into place this year. it is my sincere hope that the congress does the moorland democratically right thing and corrects this trend toward this and try and -- disenfranchisement. our constitution requires no less. i think you again for holding this hearing and for asking me to testify today and i look for to any questions you might have. thank you very much. >> thank you, hilary shelton. you have done a brilliant job and it is not often that you preempt all the other witnesses following you.

especially when they are laura murphy of the american civil liberties union, our online barbara arnwine -- barbara arnwine and matthew segal. their statements will appear in the record. i will allow them to make a brief comment, because a lot of the members appear want to begin a discussion with all of them. but i have to recognize the former chairman of the constitution subcommittee of the house judiciary committee, the one and only gerry nadler of new york. not to say anything. [laughter] just to be recognized. ok, laura and ms. arnwine.

brevity is going to be how we measure your contribution. >> i understand. i'm laura murphy and i'm the director of the aclu washington office. we have 53 affiliate's. we bring litigation. we organize within the state legislatures. and we lobby here in congress. i just want to say that the press conference that you have organized was a galvanizing moment with the community several months ago. we thank you for being the canary in the coal mine. mr. nadler and mr. scott, it is great to see you again. in 1965, after african-americans and their allies had been half- assed, fired from their jobs, water hose, bludgeoned by

police, and sometimes killed, congress finally it receded and decided that "sterner and more leverage measures were needed to combat the insidious and pervasive evil which has been perpetrated in certain parts of our country through unremitting defiance of the constitution." and that is how the voting rights act came about. said the aclu is grateful that we are not dealing with violence. but we're here to say the same evil is upon our country today. the spread of this quiet evil the does violence to our constitutional values needs national attention. we're grateful to you that you have decided to hold this hearing today to build greater awareness and create a sense of urgency about the assault on a constitutionally protected right to vote. we need your intercession. how they go over the same things that the brennan center covered in the league of women voters

and the naacp, all it is a thank you so much for the research that you have given in your advocacy. the aclu enjoys representing a lot of these curbs. we are co councils with a lawyer's committee, and we have been taking on voting rights cases since 1965. we know about all of the regressive measures that were introduced in more than 30 states. 16 states that have advanced oryx -- but stopping voter fraud is of positive rationale for these laws. there is much more evidence that qualified voters are disenfranchised by these measures then there is evidence of fraud. the effectiveness of these laws is broader than diminishing the right to vote for african- americans and other minorities. even though they will be disenfranchise the higher rate, we also know that it adversely

affects the poor, senior citizens, the disabled, students, and the homeless. they come on the top of a patchwork of state laws that affect citizens to assert their debt to society. hilary, i agree with you on all the legislation that you cited. we think they can -- the chairman for introducing one. president obama has often been accused of fomenting class warfare. the measures that we're seeing in the state's making voting less able for the poor. to is fomenting class warfare? during the 2011 legislative session, there have been dramatic proliferation of bills that would restrict access to the ballot.

on top of the aclu's affiliate's working in coalition to defeat these measures, we have been investigating and litigating in several states to challenge the spread of laws requiring photo id to vote. inin missouri, the aclu has sued on behalf of eight voters facing disenfranchisement to stop misleading language approved for a 2012 ballot measure which would amend the constitution to allow for a requirement. our clients include elderly women, who no longer drive and would have great financial difficulty obtaining necessary id documents. she is confined to a wheelchair whose idea has expired, a woman on disability due to a severe accident would encounter

physical and financial hardship , a naturalized citizen who has difficulty renewing her driver's license when she had been questioned about her birth she thicket, a board school member who will encounter difficulties because the name on her birth certificate is not the name under which she is registered to vote, and a college student whose student identification will no longer serve as valid identification under the proposed amendment. the point is not to address the problems of these individuals but that the larger groups they represent, millions of people who will not know these restrictions are enforced and will be turned away on election day. one other thing and then i want to talk about, the requirements and in wisconsin. the aclu is in the process of interviewing voters and is considering litigation.

we have identified many individuals who will be negatively affected including a 52-year-old veteran who does not and cannot afford a certified copy of his birth certificate that he would need to obtain tan id. the card is not among the kinds of identification approved for use in voting under wisconsin's law. veterans are under pressure. we will represent a 19-year-old living with his mother who has no accepted form of spruce of -- proof of wisconsin residency in cannot provide a copy of his birth certificate and a homeless resident who lacks a regular residence and cannot provide his residency to the department

of motor vehicles. we're pursuing legal challenges to the proof of requirements imposed by a state in the modern era. that is because of the anti- immigration law. it is interesting, if you look at a map of the laws in the states and overlay those to the voter suppression laws, you will find a high correlation. four states with new mandates, texas, mississippi, alabama, are required to have these changes cleared by the department of justice or a panel of federal judges. the big question is what will the department of justice do? fortunately, maine and ohio beat back efforts to suppress the vote by overwhelming margins even when their legislator vote -- voted to impose the measures.

in mississippi, the state has the -- has said that mississippi estimates it will cost $1.5 million because some people will need to be provided voter identification. what is it we are asking of you? first of all, we would appreciate it if you would put pressure on the white house and the attorney general to enforce not to just section 5 but section 2. we fought hard for it in 1982 and we do not have to prove discriminatory intent like you do when you make a constitutional challenge. why is the justice department only bringing in one section to a case? we need a vigorous enforcement of section 5. we know they are discriminating.

do not be hesitant. we need you to hold the more town hall meetings and hearings like today that highlight immediate harm some of these restrictions. we would also like your help in telling people of the states how their states are going to put partisan requirements on them. we need an educational process in tandem with all members of congress. we would ask you to talk to the state legislators of both parties. there are 43 states that have new restrictions pending. i have to say that we are facing these measures again in january in the legislature. the reason i say we have to use both parties is because -- this is my final point.

to the extent we can make this battle a non-partisan issue, our goals will be better served. i know that is difficult but i think it works. every major civil-rights law we have had enforced has had bipartisan support. with the democrat in rhode island who led the push for a voter i.d. law, an african american democrats, republicans, young voters, are in for a rude awakening in several states. these republican initiatives are political harm's for all americans, not just for democrats and racial minorities. i ask that my full testimony be made part of the record. >> you a fail completely at my

request for brevity. but you succeeded with the effectiveness of your presentation. >> thank you. i have to account to a higher power, the people who issue my check. they want to make sure the aclu had its say. >> in this hearing, there is no higher power. [laughter] now, it is on you, barbara, to demonstrate how one can be brief and effective. that is an idea.

less see how brief they can be. you have as many members of this panel as there are witnesses. there is a lot we have to talk about if you could expedite your -- all of which these statements will be in the record at the conclusion of this hearing. >> [inaudible] there you go. thank you, congressman, all of you for this critical hearing today. i am the executive director for civil-rights under law. we were founded by president kennedy to make sure that the leadership would be present and

it would give its resources and protect and promote positive civil-rights in our country. i have passed out a packet of materials that contains the full testimony but also a lot of the answers to this assault. i hope that we can talk about that during the q&a. what wanted to talk about was that in addition to our leadership in the coalition, which is composed of 150 civil- rights, civic engagement organizations, many of whom are at this table, that the committee is also involved in the act of the defense of the voting rights act of 1965. we work at national levels to eliminate the national -- racial disparities and to protect the franchise.

we work with many groups that are not here today such as the national bar association. we have been talking today about so many problems. since 2000, since the elections, our nation has been on this backward path where the gains of the civil rights movements seem at risk by those claiming they want to take this country back. from whom and to wear it? if we think about it? people of color, and disenfranchised voters, the elderly, people with disabilities and use of voters. it is startling to see what we're dealing with in 2011 as compared to the battles of the 1950's. i also want to point out this is not happening by happenstance. this is a deliberate effort to

disenfranchise voters, not just state by state but throughout the country. it is no accident that the same time we're seeing this, we are also reading articles by people suggesting that registering and voting is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. this is the mentality of many of those who are supporting these measures. we also have seen so many others in their efforts. in addition to these horrible laws that are requiring state issued a voter identification, we also see reductions in absentee voting days, attacking same-day registration, restrictions on groups attempting to register, and

these other restrictive measures. i want to talk about other stuff. nobody has mentioned the american legislative exchange council. they are a wealthy groupon funded by a wealthy interest. they have been promoting, state- by-state, the cookie cutter onerous a voter suppression legislation while we are all battling so many other-laws. by passing these laws requiring photo identification, lawmakers are ignoring the real problems that plague our system and threaten the right to vote. i have brought the nefarious, the absolutely illustrative map of shame. it shows this is what we

developed when we realized in february that people were not understanding what is happening to the right to vote. we put the first version out in april because -- this has become the answer to making sure that the american public understands what is at stake. that, in combination with to report and many other things, is the reason why we are here. this is an affront to the dignity of all americans to see this assault on our right to vote. people do not like certain voters. they believe they're going to vote against their interest. this only compounds the problems in our system. in 2008, 5 million voters did not participate because they encounter problems with the

registration or failed to receive absentee ballots. another 2 million were discouraged from voting because of long lines and other requirements. we have to start reform. what can we do? where do we start? we have to start with a couple of things. we have to fight to deceptive practices. in this last election, we saw voter deception on the internet. and facebook telling people to vote on wednesday and telling people they would not be allowed to vote. there are these things that everybody has been talking about. in addition to modernizing our system, we have to pass deceptive practices legislation. we have to increase instead of decrease in early voting.

we have to make sure we have uniformity in our process. we have to stop this felony disenfranchisement through the registration act and we need to make sure and that we need to do the best ever protection in 2012. the ultimate game is not just to pass these laws but to rely on the fact that voters who are poor, minority, they believe they will not know about these laws in time to get to the voter identification they need in time to vote. when we started these primaries in january, people will find out they will not be able to vote and go home. they are counting on people being so discouraged that they

hear about it from their neighbors and will stay home. this fight is so essential. it has to be fought now. it is not about to november 2012. it is about to now and the next several months. i am grateful for having this hearing. so grateful you have heard the full range of these effects. so grateful you are taking all of these actions to combat this fight. this might is the fight of our time. -- fight is the fight of our time. >> both of the ladies fail them being brief. -- failed on being brief. >> i am out of college so i know about time limits.

i am very proud to see all members of congress here. i have not seen this kind of turnout ever in my 26 years of life. that is very encouraging. i am not that old but i have been at this -- i have been at this too long already. good afternoon to all. thank you for inviting me to testify. i am really speaking for more than 300,000 members of ourtime.org. you can learn more there. nearly six years ago, i had the privilege of testifying to you in a similar hearing. you assembled in washington in an 2004 at the preserving democracy -- that was the title. i was a freshman in college at that time. i got into 12 our lines, the

lack of voting machines and the student disenfranchisement that whisper -- pervasive. sadly, i had the news of reporting that i believe we are worse off than we were six years ago. everyone noted what happened in texas with the concealed gun licence. in tennessee and wisconsin, we have seen identifications not be allowed or they had to meet strict criteria the most public universities. evidence also demonstrates that these restrictions do little to prevent fraud. despite this, 600 students committed voter fraud or border twice which did not turn out to be true. it only served as an intimidating effect toward younger voters.

we have seen recent setbacks in voting rights for the early voting repeal of registration. yet again these policies too little too and fraud and only force young americans to navigate extra hurdles to vote. while early voting is advantageous because when you have tests ahead of time, you can plan your time and prevent a situation by dispersing a huge turnout from one concentrated window of time. when long lines occur, more ballots happen which leads to recounts which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. that negates the argument of all of these legislatures who are saying that cutting back is saving money. recent -- it will also affect

my organization. when i was a student at registered hundreds of first- time voters and i can tell you that if i were a student today, i would be disinclined to register my classmates in fear of accidentally violating the draconian rules. notwithstanding all of these policies, i think the most frustrating component of our system for my generation is the inability to register to vote online in all but nine states. in a world where we manage investments online and buy and sell goods, it is illogical we cannot register to vote online. we spend four hours of our day on the internet and e-mail and stamps are becoming an antiquated form of correspondence. we do not see enough will to

make voting easier for all citizens. if we did, we would mimic the policies for citizens abroad. having an easier time of voting and requesting absentee ballots and domestic citizens because they can go through the program or they can request their ballots and register to vote at the same time. you cannot do that domestically. i believe we need to get to work. we cannot longer wait until an election year to discuss reform which has annoyed me forever. we must adopt standards that a short transparency during legislative sessions. we must move our process into the 21st century by expanding the registration and call into question why we vote on tuesday which originated in agrarian society or that was the only day of the week off from worship and no longer should we feel the

need to honor tradition. we live in a democracy that is becoming less accountable to our citizens by the day. we must ease the restrictions by permitting as many alternative forms of id to vote as possible. we must call on our colleges and universities to step up and do a better job insuring that students receive forms and education. they introduced bipartisan acts which would amend to allow colleges to be designated as a voter registration agencies and that bill is a step in the right direction but the bipartisan legislation has contested colleges who are more interested in fighting against the burdens and ensuring access to democracy.

i hope the members will convey their disappointment to there -- those colleges. in conclusion, with thousands of young americans spearheading protests every day, it would be unwise to label our generation as apathetic. it is a sad testament to our electoral process that so many of the protesters involved talus they find camping out in better form of political engagement than they do the process of casting a ballot. this must and if we're going to pass along the mantle of democracy. i hope the members of this committee will work in joining me in this struggle. in six years, i hope i have better news to report. >> thank you for that affective testimony. but you are no different than the others.

the failure that i havee -- thank you to all the witnesses. >> thank you. this has been an excellent hearing. good information. good energy and focus. a good message. one of the problems in today's world is that discrimination is more subtle. because it is subtle, leaving people of a good will miss the consequences of some actions. that is what we're talking about. of course we want to make sure you only vote once. as you pointed out, a solution in search of a problem. i have to go but want to make a

couple of observations. the provisional ballot was to say, ok, if there is confusion on the day when you're dealing with amateurs, volunteers, running our elections, it is reasonable to conclude they may not be able to decide in that 13 hour day exactly whether or not somebody has registered. we provide a provisional ballot and take the next 48 hours to check on. that is a provision which is not being adhered to in the same fashion throughout the country. even in my own county, different precincts handle it differently. i would urge all of you to look at that. i want to see a continuity of purpose and performance.

that is how we can make sure they were able to vote or not. not by some arbitrary identification. let me say i would hope you would think about the scheduling hearings like this in other fora throughout the country. so that we can get to voters to come and speak to us and say this is what happened to me. i think that would be very powerful. i will attend whichever meetings i can. i mean i get to all of them. we will do that. let me say, it has been mentioned and i interrupted. republican leadership wanted to do away with the commission. the justice department -- the

only administrative body that tries to see that elections are conducted properly to facilitate and encourage and include the most voters possible is the election assistance committee. it needs work but it is the only body. we ought to make it better. so that voters can be protected. mr. chairman, credit for this opportunity. i am not going to ask questions because i would not be able to stay to hear the answer. all of the members you see sitting -- you were there -- you're going to be there. i know there were other people there. we're going to continue to have those. we are doing special orders. we hope to have at least one minute every day between now and

the end of the year. whatever rules they put in place, that we cannot get set aside, let's make sure that every voter in every jurisdiction can comply with those rules. you said -- we're starting today. in my state, yellow means ok? it is not going to pass. our governor will veto it. our're trying to shorten voting days. but governor o'malley is going to veto those. we need to make every effort collectively to make sure our voters can comply. we want to set aside these rules. it may not be done overnight but we cannot afford not to have

them able to vote. this election is crucial to them, their families, and their country. >> thank you. thank you for your leadership and commitment for what you are doing. you have given us a lot of food for thought. >> the chairman has been one of my mentors. i can remember standing on the west front of the capital of the united states in my first year in the congress. talking about making martin luther king jr.'s birthday a national day of observance and rededication. john conyers did that along with others. thank you for all you have done.

>> we are grateful for your time. returning now to -- whose long service on the committee makes it important that we recognize him. >> thank you very much. let me say -- i'm going to make a short statement. it is obvious what is going on. i was surprised to hear a witness talk about educate the legislators. they know is going on. this is a deliberate effort to disenfranchises millions of voters, minority voters, older voters, young voters, students, for political purposes. when someone testified how poor

people wanted to use the votes to rob other people, that is out of the federalist party of the 1800's. the jeffersonian democrats did not agree with it. it has taken until now to come back. it is a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise poor people. if low income people vote they will extract money from rich people. that is improper. we have seen people all right to that. we had a member of this committee who said he was in favor of restoring property requirements for voting because only people with property have a skin in the game.

we know it is going on. it is a fomented by billionaires and the republican party leadership. i do not think that educating legislators is going to do much with a few exceptions. they are in on the conspiracy. the question is how to beat the conspiracy. it is like the jim crow conspiracy. it is an attempt -- that map is a little misleading. it shows states where such bills are pending. we have the democratic majorities in their introduced by republican members, those bills are not going anywhere. it is not a map of where there is a danger.

the red states -- some of the yellow states are dangerous in the sense that might get through and some are not. in new york, don't worry about it. i know that as a new yorker. in any event, obviously there is a war against the civil rights here. it is an attempt to use one election to perpetuate those majorities by taking away the right to vote from people who might not vote the "right way." protecting the right to vote should be a priority and yet they have only brought one section case. mr. murphy, under section 2, is

there any reason why you could not show a disparity? >> these cases are expensive for groups like the aclu to bring. >> the justice department couldn't attack -- >> the justice department would have to devote more resources to this. they claim they are. we have met with the attorney general and brought this issue up, but we have not seen the movement. it is a fact-intensive case. >> let me ask another question. in congress, assuming we had a majority that was more sympathetic than the current majority, could we, without an

racial questions, we have done that already in 1965. could we pass legislation under the 14th amendment with respect to state elections romney federal elections as was done before the 18-year-old vote. with respect to federal elections, and elections that affect federal elections like elections to bodies that endorse candidates. >> i think you would be more vulnerable to constitutional challenge, especially with the supreme court. you are on a much stronger footing bringing it under the 14th amendment and dissident --

asserting jurisdiction. >> realistically, our experience has been that states do not run dual elections. they will conform. >> that is the experience. in new york, where we may be forced to move the primary up because of the federal law, on military balance, some people in the state senate are suggesting we hold a separate state primary even though that low-cost $50 million in order to not obey the federal law. new york is plenty of money, except in the budget. do you see any first amendment problem in legislation that would make it a criminal to

misinform voters by saying black people or whoever vote wednesday? >> the aclu is the oldest and largest organization devoted to defending the bill of rights. these issues are challenging for the aclu because we have a right in this country to make incorrect statements. we are concerned that a statute be narrowly tailored to make sure that of free-speech rights are not intruded upon but also that we are criminalizing actions and not speech. >> you could drive nearly? >> we're not big fans of the false advertising statute but

you can look at behavior, actions taken, time lines, to make a case that a certain type of communication is designed to impede another constitutional right. you do have to take into account the first amendment rights and all the other amendments that have been passed, the 24th amendment. >> my last question is more specific. a couple of weeks ago, for any of the lawyers here, in attacking a voter i.d. law, as permitted the use of a gun license but not a college id,

could you use that to disparity as evidence of invidious intent or discrimination on the grounds that the proof necessary for a college id of residence is at least as necessary as that's to get a gun license? and the legislature says the more difficult to get the id is not sufficient because it is easier to get the licenses because we like gun owners voting. could you use that as a constitutional wedge? >> i think so. >> one of the biggest problems we have is that this current

supreme court has been deferential to states of about a their collection systems. that is one of the conflicts we have had about the disenfranchisement laws. i think that the case should be made and it should be pursued. i wanted to go back to the map. i wanted to point out that the yellow is telling people, you have to be vigilant. folks never thought dryland because it was democratic would enact a voter identification requirement. and it did. people did not think that there were other states like maine that would not happen because of the history but it is happening. i wanted to point out is to

remind people to be vigilant. >> a fair point. >> going back to the case that did make it to the supreme court, the crawfords decision which was decided on favorably on a 6-3 vote, the supreme court gave a deference to state election officials and said they were not required to show a discriminatory impact. their goal was the elimination of the fraud. that was good enough. they left the door open to and as applied challenge. instead of a facial challenge. i think we would be able to demonstrate and the aclu has four lawsuits in the pipeline against voter i.d. requirements to go at what we think is the loophole in the decision in

crawford. >> how would you define that a loophole? aside from -- >> as applied. after these practices are in place, we would have to demonstrate that they have had a disparate impact that was unconstitutional. >> could you challenge in advance that? >> it is more challenging after crawford. we really want to challenge them as soon as they become law but we do not want to lose so we want to make sure we have all the data. >> you are saying we will have to live with these four couple of elections. >> it is possible. we have to look at main and ohio and how people organize

even after the state legislature acted and the governor signed it. >> that is where you have a referendums. >> the aclu does support a ban on deceptive practices in voting. but the ban has to be narrowly tailored. >> let me turn now to a judiciary committee member who has worked tirelessly on this subject and on initiatives across the country. >> i want to thank our witnesses for their testimony. one of our objectives is to put some light on these schemes to nine people the right to vote. it used to be if you did not

think people were going to vote the way you wanted them to, you would not register them. you would not be registered. today makes the process a little more difficult. you can still vote if you do not mind standing in line for an hour or if you send away for your birth certificate and it comes back in time. when you have a registration drive where you would get a thousand people registered, all of these other -- 20% not being able to get their paperwork done in time. now you have to go to the dmv and here and there and by the time you finish what would have been a drive of 1000 people is on a couple hundred. on a couple hundred. that could easily be