ohio and florida and other states to swing and the entire national election. if we don't complain now, there will come up with a scheme after scheme after scheme. this does not have anything to do with fraud. to point out that there is very little evidence of voter fraud. to the extent there may be the cure is a lot worse than the disease. every person you may stop from voter fraud, maybe even thousands of people would be denied the right to vote because of all of these procedural hurdles. the intent is clear as a jerry nadler pointed out. when you allow the concealed weapons permits to be a voter

i.d. but not a student i.d., you know this thing is being designed with partisan implications. our job is to make sure that we put some light on it. hopefully we will be able to pass legislation to prevent this from going on. hopefully some people will be embarrassed because there seems have been exposed. let me ask, you have done the order registration in the past and you're doing them under these laws. how many fewer people do you think your drives will be able to register as a result of the schemes? >> is it on? at this point, i could not give you a solid number but i can say

that we had a high school project we have been proud of over the last election. one of the problems we were encountering in registering high school students was the problem of these kids not having photo id in the states in which was required. i will also mention -- >> in the past, it would be registered. >> that is right. >> now with all this paperwork -- >> the only person in this room that has had to present friday for the last few elections, the edition in georgia -- the proof

of citizenship has meant that is giving us issues because we have to present proof we have collected that data. you do not usually go to a drive with a copying machine. there is a lot of logistics' to this that provides additional barriers for bonafide third- party groups better trying. >> registration drives, can you give -- are you talking about most of the people you're trying to register? a few? >> this is part of the problem with dealing with this issue. if you are registering in all 50 states with all the various laws, it is difficult to be able to collect data as to how many people don't even show up or

don't think they can register. that is where we are concerned in terms of the atmosphere that is being created. it is not just the effects of these laws, it is the message we're sending that to have to how -- have so much stuff why even bother to show up? >> can you give us an idea of the problem? >> look no further than the four new procedures in florida which include needing to pre register with the state before engaging in any voting activity. having to a sign a sworn affidavit for false or mistaken registration. having to ensure that every form is physically received by county officials within 48 hours of signature.

that is the most egregious. four, having to list the date and time when the registration form was completed as well as the organizational code on the form of tracking the number of -- and said that such figures monthly. my organization met with some lawyers and determined it would be too expensive to do any grass roots of voter registration. instead, we are only doing online voter registration through a tool where voters can print out a form that they have to mail in from the federal form we have on our web site. the burden is on the individual, not the organization. >> how successful warrior drives in the past? >> incredibly. we have had students who said

they registered the vast majority of their campus in person. >> i wanted to add one thing. the laws in florida are troubling. there is a similar bill pending in michigan to the one that currently exists in florida that i am concerned has a chance of passing. there has been some good news. we have been talking about a lot of the bad ones that have been coming out. there has been some good news in some states, not the states we have been talking about but states like delaware and oregon and washington were you have things like online registration and and automation of the process that the department of motor vehicles so that when i do my paperwork that automatically goes to election offices.

there is a great opportunity for congress to see that happen nationally. it would address a lot of the unfounded claims and would have a millions more americans registered. >> how often do you hear allegations of misinformation campaigns? complaints of that going on? >> all the time. if you're talking about those who want to vote, we have been through everything from every high-tech robo-calls where people called the african- american community and told them they would be able to participate in a new experiment to vote from home.

the told them which button to push to cast the vote in that election. and telling them they did not have to worry too coming out to the polls. it is amazing. >> thank you. >> i turned now to steve coen. >> all of the testimony was outstanding. bexpect in six years you'll here is a member. very impressive. mr. shelton, i would like to give you good news. mr. de hours at the church in memphis, tenn. where floyd flake was the visiting pastor. the pastors their past everyone to join the naacp. they said it was the number 1

civil rights organization in our country. the night before in memphis, the civil rights museum had an award program. the naacp was bank for their work. one of the issues mentioned was voting rights and voting in what is happening in this nation. it is a major challenge. it is not jim crow but it is jim crows cousin. the most important -- maybe the most important testimony was what mr. campbell gave. he is not in my district. >> i wish i were. [laughter] >> thank you, sir.

how many hundred thousand do not have them? it is unbelievable. we are looking at maybe 1.5%. that shows the problem we face and the purpose -- this was done to suppress the vote. it was done to win the election in 2012 and other alexian's because tennessee is a red state. it would take a parting of the seas for us to change our course. but tennessee did it, too. was 2300 people, we are not going to get it. i wrote dictum -- letter to commissioner gibbons encouraging him to do things.

they are doing a registration, a first saturday or you get a photo id and it is free. in shelby county, there are two places on the extreme parts of the county. not easy to get -- get to. it is only one saturday a month. voting is the most important pillar of our society, and democracy. we have a lot of people talking about how we're spending trillions to get democracy in iraq but we're on the keeping drivers license and opened one saturday. it is sad. i got my photo i.d., too. when i was 60, i did not want to get my picture taken. i didn't. but then i realized i did. i had a passport. it took me an hour-and-a-half to

go through the driver's license to get my picture. it took an hour and a half. it is going to be impossible for folks, people over 60, every day of my pictures look worse and worse. >> i want to say this is a problem in rural areas where there are not hospitals and many people give birth at home. a lot of jurisdictions will not give you birth certificates unless you have a witness to the birth. in the air -- indian reservations, most people 40 and over have a difficult time getting birth certificates. if you cannot get a birth certificate, how are you going to prove who you are? that is the beginning of getting the id.

that is why republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. many of them represent rural areas and there are going to be farmers and low income people who are not going to travel the distance and not have the documentation even if they could. >> i hope they do. i think was you, ms. murphy, who hoped this would be non- partisan. it would be easier to get a fair tax system. >> we had a state where the democratic party tried to disenfranchise a baptist university because they were afraid the students would vote republican. we had to sue the democratic party. in maine, it was started by republicans in 1973. i feel because i have been working these issues for 35

years that we have to begin to show them that it is not in anyone's self interest. it took lyndon johnson 20 years to vote for his first civil rights law so i keep hope alive. >> mr. campbell, you may not know this but the national registration act requires all states to offer registration to any resident so that when they come in they can be asked about voting and asked to register to vote. that happens when you apply for a driver's license, etc. we do not ask them have that. should congressman date that the state also offer at that

same place the opportunity to get a photo i.d. which is the voting now? >> i would say that the answer to that question would be yes. part of the problem is in tennessee, i suppose there are other states -- so many of the state agencies are understaffed and overworked. so when the -- this legislation passed it was essentially them giving to the state department safety to do these, perform these tasks and i think that's also what's hampered the situation. but i was talking to a person just about this very thing the other day at what point not when you register to vote, if they're going to have this law, when you register to vote if you register at the election

office, why not set it up there that you could have the photograph? it would take some of the burden off of the -- off of the -- >> motor vehicles -- >> motor vehicle department. >> right. >> it makes a lot of sense, mr. campbell. if we're going to make the federal government and the federal government has this law that you've got make registration available but that was in the good old days. but if you have to have this, registry means nothing. let me ask you at question, mr. chairman, if i can. police recently arrested a supervisor of elections for casting fraudulent absentee votes. mr. shelton said there are more fraud dealing with election officials than with voters. have any states including florida, where they've got certain proposed laws or laws on this, have any of those

states passed stronger laws against election officials participating in fraud or fraudulently affecting elections? >> not that i'm aware of. but i think the point is an important one. we haven't seen any great increase in the last few years of inperson voter fraud. to the contrary, if anything because of the help america vote act and other laws passed by congress and greater securities, it's extremely difficult for the kind of in-person voter fraud that something like voter i.d. would prevent. whenever we have seen any kind of fraud in the past few year, it's almost always related to some kind of insider effort. and so, you know, again i would say to the extent that there is something that can be done about that kind of fraud, what

we really should be focused on is making sure that our voter registration records are up to date and accurate and the best way to do that is to do things like automate registration so that the records from the department of motor vehicles and social service agencies which tend to be the most up to date are the ones that we're using for voter registration. >> well, in florida when we had the problem that gave the supreme court that made president bush the president, was it the citizens or was the voting officials that messed up the chazz counting? >> there's no question that there were big flaws in our voting system that were discovered in 2002. the help america vote act was meant to address those. we still have a long way to go. to me we need to focus on

elections, not these made-up problems that we tend to hear a lot about immediately before somebody's trying to pass a voter i.d. bill or immediately before they're trying to appeal election day registration. you know, you can have all these stories debunked but in the end kind of throwing stuff on the wall about voter fraud has been very effective. so i would agree with your premise that the real thing we should be doing is working to improve our elections systems not disenfranchising voters. >> that's the solution we need. quickly, just a one-word answer. what grade would you give the american -- this congress and the american political sthm year when it comes to protecting the right to vote? >> one-word answer -- >> a letter, a letter answer. >> the only thing i can focus on are the states that they've been proposing on --

>> one letter. >> i would give the state a failing grade in terms of protecting america -- >> mr. norton? >> failing -- >> f. mr. campbell? >> i'd give them an i which is incomplete. >> quite frankly it would have to be enough they failed miss ably everything from the help america vote act which has not been fully implemented. many of things that we're talking about is that mr. conyers and mr. scott were helping to put in place. in one of them was the issue of statewide voter registration systems that is every state was given an opportunity to computerized their voter registration roles. it would solve many of the concerns about having the data right in front of you. it would even pull up your face

on information right at the polling sight. those things are very much part of what should have been done. a i give them a six-foot i. >> ms. murphy? >> i'd say f. i'd say f. >> mr. segel? >> i would say f. >> one last thought -- when i was a child, mr. segel you weren't around them, they had a tv showed "have gun will travel." now we have "have gun will vote." i yield back the remainder of my time. >> we're going to have the chairman to ask his questions and close us down. i want to thank everybody so much. but while steve cohen was talking i had an opportunity to examine the license when she

turned 60, and you would be shocked to learn how long ago that was. but congressional courtesy prevents me from revealing what is on that license. and so we turn to the chairman to wind us down. >> again, mr. chairman, thank you for your wisdom in calling this hearing and bringing in such an august body of witnesses. it is sad that we would even have to have such a hearing today. i don't have a question. perhaps it's a rhetorical question. you know, and it would be what is the penalty of -- for reducing with some intentionality the number of

people who can vote. is there a penalty to the people who are doing that? there are always consequences to our actions whether they are individual or whether they are national. and i am saddened by the fact that we are encouraging people to vote around the globe in trying to stop it at home. a few months ago i was in haiti with a delegation from the congressional black caucus on election day. and i can remember how disturbed many of us were one day when one young man who had followed us around came and said, that he went to the polling place and nobody was there and he went to another place. they told him he couldn't vote. and we were frustrated with him because he was having difficulty. and he didn't have a car.

he had walked all around the city including areas where there are -- there were still physical barriers trying to vote. and it -- it demonstrated that i think the blood of democracy flows through the vains -- veins of this planet. and we in the united states up until now at least try to be the example for the rest of the world, we have even sent, this is embarrassing, we have sent teams into nations to monitor their elections, the united states of america monitoring elections around the world, trying to say to people, we want you to look at us. look at how we conduct our elections. we've chosen to use acorn and

nine members of the black panther party as an excuse to do this all over the country. i have twin boys. when they were about maybe 2 years old about 3:00 in the morning, we heard a loud noise and for those of us who are old enough to be parents, you run and you jump to the children's bedroom which my wife and i did. we got up and one of the twins was on the floor. and of course, my heart was pounding when i knelt down beside him and i shook him and he opened his eyes, thank god, and i said, son, what happened? and he looked up at me. he looked up at his mom. he looked over at his bed. and he said, i think i was

sleeping too close to where i got in. and the great tragedy at this moment in our nation's history is after all we've gone through to create a nation where there's equal access to the voting booth, it seems to me that in 2011, we're sleeping too close to where we got in. thank you very much for your time and for all of your testimony. >> can i make a comment because i wanted to point out that the united states pays the price internationally for having such a bad voting system? it really does hurt us. we have been reviewed by the -- by various u.n. bodies regarding our racial -- our compliance on matters of racial equality with the assisting courts including international civic and political right, including the convention for

the elimination for race and discrimination known as isurd and recently about two years ago -- about a year ago we had the universal periodic review, and each of the commissions have found that there are racial disparities and our racial discrimination in voting is absolutely apore rent and has called for the -- abore rent and has called for the united states to get rid of these felony disenfranchisement law, to get rid of these laws against minority voters, all of these issues have been addressed in one report after another from the united nations. it's costing us. it's one of the reasons why we have that, you know, image abroad of trying to tell everybody else what to do but not doing it ourselves. so it's a very big problem and

i wanted to point that out. the other thing i wanted to say is that this is coming. this is something we want to make sure every congress person knows about. and this is the election protection smart phone app. everybody has one of these. you know, some form of a smart phone but this will be the game-changer, i hope for many americans because if you have a phone if you can get somebody else's phone, you're going to be able to look at your voter registration. you're going to be able to look up these law, know what to do, how to get registered, who to go to, if you're being denied who to complain to. we're launching this. it will be out by next montana and we want to make sure that everybody -- out by next monday and we want to make sure that everybody has access. this will be a totally good

device for people coming up. >> the other way we'll be heard is in the administration of justice because we will have a difficult impaneling juries because they're taken from voter registration rolls. so we already have a slow system. so in civil and in criminal cases, we are going to find that the wheels of justice churn much more slowly because we have devastated the jury selection poll. >> and with that note, i thank from the bottom of my heart on behalf of chairman cleburne, bobby scott and steve cohen and myself, all of you wonderful witnesses who i think have helped us make a return that should be promulgated and distributed around the country

and we might be asking some of you to join us as we go into other parts of our nation to discuss this because there are other victims that like the campbells would like to be heard. so i thank you very much and declare this forum adjourned. >> thank you. >> coming up, a discussion on jobs and the economy. you'll first hear from democratic governor mark o'malley. and a little less than an hour from the brookings institution the comments of republican

presidential candidate jon huntsman. the former governor of utah and former ambassador to china. and after that we'll hear on state voting law and voting rights hosted by house democrats. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. republican senator marco rubio will be interviewed by mike allen at 8:15 eastern on c-span2. and on c-span 3, defense secretary leon pennetta talking about the iraq security. that's at 9:30 a.m. eastern. wednesday on book tv online, watch live streaming coverage of the national average book awards, red carpet interviews with the nonfiction finals, and book tv is live from the miami

book fair international with events and viewer call-ins. find the complete schedule online at book tv.org. >> the c-span.org home page is now easier to use. the new design features 11 video choices making it easier for you to watch today's events. there's a section to select "washington journal," "book tv" and "the contenders." you can quickly watch it on cable across the country at the all new c-span.org. now maryland governor mark o'malley on jobs the economy and the states. he's a member of the democratic governor's association and

spoke at the national press club for a little more than an hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> good morning welcome to the national press club. thank you for being here. this might be a good time for everyone to put their mobile device on vibrate, if you would. this morning we're fortunate to have as our guest the governor of maryland who is chairman of the democratic governor's association mark o'malley. with the 2012 election around the corner we hope he will share a few notes from his election playbook on the role democratic governors will play on their resurgence next year.

first elected governor in 2006, he was re-elected last year with 56% of the vote. a sp% margin over his opponent. under his administration, maryland has cut nearly $7 billion in spending at the same time the state has done great investments in education. maryland is only one of eight states with a triple-a credit rating. this year maryland ranks 10th in new job creation with an unemployment rate below the national average. and maryland public scrools been ranked best in the nation for three years in a row. as chair of the d.g.a. he is widely credited with stemming the tied after a number of gains by republicans governors in recent years. compared to his predecessor he

is seen as being more aggressive toward republicans and is a stanch supporter of president obama's agenda including american jobs act in june they announced it had raised $11 million in the first six months of 2011, with $.6 million cash on hand, a record for the d.g.a. especially in the off-election year. most insiders believe that governor o'malley will be a shoe in to winer re-election as d.g.a. chair this december. and i just discovered that as a former mayor of baltimore he appeared as himself in the movie "ladder 49." >> it's a hard role. where are that i'm pleased to welcome and >> with that i am pleased to welcome governor mark o'malley. >> thank you. and thank you to everyone here at the national press club.

thank you all for being here this morning. it is great to be with all of you and i wanted to talk to you a little bit today from a democratic governor's perspective about the pace of our nation's jobs recovery, about the governing choices and economic policies. the democratic governors are making to accelerate that job's recovery. each of us has a role to play as governor of the 50 states and also the very different set of choices that i see, anyway, being made by many republican governors. so let's jump in here, shall we? >> over the last five years in our state, in the state of maryland, we have been focused on creating jobs and improving the conditions for job creation with performance measurement. we've been making our government work more effectively with openly setting public goals and with transparency. we measure our progress towards

achieving those goals and building on our strength that mr. lewis kindly mentioned a few of them and the better decision of our state's past, we have been able to make progress and we've done so in some very, very challenging economic times. how do we do that? by choosing a balanced approach, a balanced approach that includes a mix, revenues and strategic investment in that better feature that we prefer. strategic investments of our strength. the progress that we are making in the 20,000 jobs created this year, progress that we're making in maryland's public schools being named the number one school three years in a row. never happened before but it happened in the middle of this great recession. we're driving crime and homicides down to their lowest levels since the 1970's.

and protecting our triple-a bond rating, one of eight states that's been able to do so. across our country, democratic governors in the toughest of times are blah -- balancing budget, creating jobs and doing it all at the same time. as governor bashire said, he said in the closing days, "true leadership is having the courage to make the right cuts 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 vrge, we saw that the voters sent a very powerful message and it was this -- knock off the narrow idology and put job -- ideology

and put jobs back. that's also what governor tomlin did in west virginia. while his opponent talked about peripheral issues like health care lawsuits and in kentucky even at the close of the campaign, steve bashire stayed focus on jobs. his opponent went into hindu business opening ceremonies and challenging the sin serity of governor bashire's religious beliefs. but they staid on jobs. they stayed focused on the things that good leaders do regardless of partisan to brirching people together to -- to bring people together to make the hard decisions.

voters disagreed governor casic's senat bill five. this would have taken collective bargaining rights from public employees including moms and dads who happen to serve all of us as frts or -- firefighters or teachers or police. more people voted against senat bill five than turned time-out vote for governor casic to begin with. the voters i believe in effect were saying, look, enough already with the anti-union ideology. what does banning unions have to do with creating jobs and expanding opportunities? voters told us they want people to come together to solve problems, create jobs and do the things that work. and that's what democratic governors are doing in every part of our country, making the tough but right choices now to

create jobs and to expand opportunity. recently governor mall loy of connecticut called a special session around job creation. and he brought together democrats and republicans alike on a package that included a balance of investments, infrastructure, tax credits, and support for small businesses. in delaware, jack markell, a man who has a very much business approach to making government work has put forth a serious job creation initiative called building delaware's future now which calls for additional investments and the job creation priorities supported by democratic and groups across the country called infrastructure. in north carolina, the governor seeks to make every student

ready by the time they go to college. so that they have the skills they need to fill the new jobss that are creating -- being create bd the new economy in north carolina. there are two nick -- economic models at play here. if there's neigh we should have learned from the administration of george w. bush is that trickle down economics does not work. trickle down economics does not create jobs. trickle down economics does not grow our middle-class. trickle down economics does not expand opportunity and yet, the struggle goes on between two competing economic models, one that's been proven to work in every generation, versus one that brought us record debt and record unemployment. one that built the strongest middle-class in the history of the planet, and very nearly

drove our national economy into a second great depression. now these two fundamentally different set of choices are playing out not only in congress but in state houses all across our country. let's go back to ohio as one extreme example among money where the governor is making deep cuts in economic priors. even as he cuts taxes for the estate of dead millionaires and billionaires, hoping i can only suppose that 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.

extreme concentration of wealth, the greatest concentration that has worked since the 1920's. there should be jobs falling from the sky and washing up on american beaches. >> we created only one million jobs during the bush administration. during the clinton administration we created 23,000 jobs. i report. you decide. which one's the most effective model. >> they succeeded in accomplishing their mean vrs well. we all have to give them a hats off for that. and that means the extreme concentration of wealth. it's been a failure for america. it's been a failure for america's economic growth and we are still recovering from the losses of the push decade and their failed trickled down failed economic model.

>> it is not fiscally responsible. it is not good for our country. we believe in our different model, the more traditionally if you will american model. this model puts job creation first and it recognizes to create jobs, a modern economy requires modern investment. now that isn't a democratic or republican idea. that's an economic truth. that is a historic truth. that is an american ideas and it is one that we proved out time and time again as a people. we have a long, long way to go. before we recover all that we've lost in the last decade but we can make our economy stronger and we can make our country better. last month our nation received the 13th month in a row of positive job growth under president obama's leadership. that's 13 months in a row which is the longest stretch of

consecutive positive job creation that our country has achieved since 2005, 2006. meanwhile get this, the private sector has gone for 20 consecutive months in a row of net positive job growth. last month under president obama's leadership we drove home flore closures down to their second lowest month that we've seen since november 2007. in july it was a 44-month low. because we are starting to make better choices as a people, our economy is starting to get better. bank failures are down, corporate profits are up but better isn't good enough. we haven't regained all that we've lost in the bush recession and too many citizens are hurting for work. and there's a lot to do. the truth of our situation is, we won't move beyond our current job creation and employment difficulties simply

by cutting. it's not possible. if it feels to you that every month our economy is taking two or three steps forward and then taking one step back, that's because every month for every two or three jobs that are created in the private sector are public sector is eliminating a job. the abscess of a more balanced approach, the absence of moderation in our decisions of our endeavor is forcing county, forces cities, forcing states to actually slow down our jobs recovery with never-ending layoffs and job eliminations. if our public play rolls were bloated perhaps we could all tchalk up to right sizing. but in most payrolls payrolls are not bloated. how much less education do we

need as a nation? for the last decade we've been severely under capitalizing, the great job generating and expanding the idea of america. we have been urchedit wasing in the opportunity, pangs. others may want to talk about the economic systems. others they rightly want to talk about the morality of the economic stham is rigged. they concentrate so much of our nation's wealth in the hands of a few. but i am just as confused about house these four choices and the better job opportunities that we want for our children. our country invested nearly 12% of federal nondefense spending in our ininfrastructure. today, we're at just 3%.

when it comes to basic research and development, we are today investing 60%less that we were investing when richard nixon was elected president. >> the last 10 years or so, we've seen the ranking and the percentage of people in college degrees, actually they decline among the nation's of the world. it's not what other countries are doing to us. it's what we are not doing for ourself. no one else is going to do these things for us. no one sells going to make these national economic investments in education an infrastructure for us. the american society recommends that we invest, should invest 846 billion over the next decade to upgrade our road, our bridges and our tunnels.

>> ending the bush tax cut, returning to clinton era tax rates, that is to say for those highest brackets would allow us to make $400,000 of that 800 billion dollar needed investment. to governor is to choose. democratic governors believed that there are in fact some changes that are so large that we can only hope to establish them by working together. creating jobs, spurring innovation and how we feed our people. ex-panting opportunity in this fast changing new economy. improving public safety, making college more affordable for more people. rebuilding transportation infrastructure. >> these things won't happy by themselves. we must do them as we always have before. we must do them together. and we must do that ourselves.

i appreciate your time in coming here today. i thank you for your interest and how important and courageous decisions of men and women who are democratic governors of many of these states that are making. it's been my honor to have served them. and they're all making our country a better place. be glad now, mr. lewis, to open it up for questions and search with you for answers. thanks. >> perfect. >> stay here or go there? what do you want to do? >> ok. >> we will open it up for questions. please give us your name as well as your affiliation. >> reporter with stateline. we are the news service of the state. there appears to be no

compromise. it seems to be the opposite of investment that's being discussed right now. >> yeah, the question's about the supercommittee and the important work that they're doing. i think all of us hope that the super committee will bring us together in this time of dre division and polarization. what we need is a spirit of compromise, a spirit of moderation and an ability to don't the balanced approach. when 55% of our debt is driven by bush era tax cuts that primarily benefited the very wealthy. that balanced approach most recently include an undoing reversal if you will and end to that ongoing self-inflicting revenue wound. and there was some little bit of talk from our friends and

the proud party of lincoln. farther every examination that first sort of over chur coming as late as it did appeared to be more of a shell game than a real step towards reversing the damage of so that was on -- i spoke earlier week chris van hol lynn. daddy is very, very proud to have ben holland on that committee. he continues to work. there is that sequester limit and hopefully they'll make some pro-griss here. -- progress here. we all need to stay at this. we don't have another progress from now. how often do thuzz new

republican -- does that happen? we need to make progress at the national interest and at the forefront. but a -- you know, we are staring between -- well, let me stop there. i don't want to filibuster questions then y'all stop asking. >> dave canny, politico. you all know that in wisconsin they are pursuing a recall for scott walker. is the d.g.a. and you're are you support oif of that movement. and have you spoken to them towards any resources towards accomplishing that. >> there are a lot of people that would like to recall governor walker in wisconsin. as an organization we have not had a conversation about it. ly tell you -- i will tell you

this, if we have time toer place the ideological thinking, we'd be here. the wisconsin recall would be on the horizon. i think what i can safely say on their behalf, if the recall goes forward and it's successful, the, you know, the d.g.a. will be there. >> as we were in ohio. >> i believe you are traveling to india. why are you traveling there? >> i am traveling to india. i'm traveling with the number of business people from maryland, traveling west judge

katy o'malley. and she'll be doing a lot of work on rule of law sort of things which is something she's taken on as first -- as first lady. i'll be traveling there primarily to promote maryland as the destination for an investment into maryland. we have an outstanding workforce at our state. we have more p.h.d.'s per capita than any other states in the union. and i think we are well suited to go to india. and health care, life science, biotech and i.t. give him the concentration of innovation assets. we have in our state from the national security administration, center for medicaid and medicare services. so all of these things along with the food and drugged a

stration makes us stay for a real powerhouse. and also the national institute of standards. i think it's pretty much the center of the epic center for security. we hope to build on those strengths. advertise them and recruit investors from india to invest in maryland? >> i am exactly traveling there the friday before thanksgiving and i'll be there for roughly a week. thank you. >> looking towards 2012 -- [inaudible] >> yes, the -- so the question

is with the races coming up next year, there are 12, 1 races that are up next year. and next year's also a presidential year. we have -- we have our work cut out for us. i mean, these are not easy times. everybody would like to see the jobs recovery happening a lot more quickly than it is. and i think -- no one desires that more than the president and democratic governors but the truth of the matter is this is a very, very challenging time, a lot of people hurting and there are no easy solutions or easy answers. so the races that are coming up next year are not only nornt the traditional way of look agent the horse race. which one flips red? which one flips blue, there are also important battles that in the past -- places like ohio,

places like florida. places like wisconsin have played important roles in the electoral college map. and in all three of those states we have a tremendous amount of buyer's remorse who had voters who elected a new governor of a new party thinking that they were sending us a strong message for job creation and instead what they got back was a lot of inpractical and extreme right-wing ideology whether if it's the union stuff, cutting health care for seniors in order to feel tax cuts are for the wealthy. so those dynamics are also going to play out in those states and the contrast that they provide leadership by example. >> we'll also play an important

role in this presidential race. we are very excited about the potential in indiana. greg, i've met with him. he's a dynamic person with a sort of fearless commitment to public service and an ability to talk about these complex issues. we also have our vice chair beverly purdue. we'll have the the jobs. i was reading a book on bringing jobs in the economy. jon lynch retires one of the most popular democratic governor.

so there will be a race to fill his seat and in vermont they like to keep them hopping. and so that one will be up as well. montana, brian switezer will be completing his two-term limit. our attorney general was we're very, very excited about. there will be lots of things that will be going on in the dynamic of a rate. it is not the year where we have 30 governor's offices up but it is an important year. some of the most important year as far as it plays into the presidential race will be the contrast of democratic governors who bring people together, to make the right decisions to some narrow minded

ideology that never create at single job and that will be the choice. it might also be a choice that finds an echo in the national campaign. >> >> "governing" magazines. >> you believe that governing can actually work, don't you? >> we hope so. >> you believe government can work, can make things happen. that's why i like your magazine. >> we've been having a gas tax increase in maryland. is that something that's going to be palatable torres dents there? is that something you see ever working at the federal level where the leadership in both sides of the aisle seem to be opposed to this? >> yeah, we question us about the gas tax and the possibility

of raising it in mt. there was recently for those of you who warned national or might have missed this, we have a blue ribbon commission that was impaneled by the legislature to look out what we were investing in our infrastructure and make recommendations in order to informs at a level where not only our bridges don't fall into our rivers but also that we're building up that common platform of us. one of the greatest hits are the sector. so the blue ribbon commission cam bake with a proposed snap increase. we're considering that. we're looking that. and whether or not we're ultimately successful in being able to bring people together to make more investments in our intrastructure at a better level in job creation and

expansion is really going to take place in the dynamics that takes place. i'm one servant leader in this government. and we have to figure this out. nothing tougher to ask people to do in the midst of a recession where everyone's hurt than to ask them to pay a little more for anything. so i think among the various taxes throughout, you'd be so impressed to find one that's more unpopular than attacks on gasoline having said that in our state and each state's a little different, we have a flat tax on a gallon of 123 cents. so when gasoline was $1.0 per gallon, back in the 1970's that's when that 23 cents went on. since the 1970's our road network, our transportation

network, our infrastructure network, the amount of land we've consumed and the commuter routes have greatly increased. the gas tax on the dollar has not. it went up recently to $4. the gas tax still stayed. and however innovative you might want to be in terms of financing for these things or public-private partnerships there is just no way. however clever you want to be to build a $90 million. you might be able to come up places, you might choose to toll it. as my predecessor did in the i.c.c. but there's no race to build a $30,000 bridge for a bridge. we have to have this conversation an figure out what

to do. will the result be son-in-law sort offer hybrid? could be. -- will the result be some sort of hybrid? could be. we need to invest it more into our intrastructure than we were in the 1970's. and no one else is going to do this for us. yes, sir. >> i'm sorry. >> thank you since you answered that tax question so well, the other day there was an article in the washington business journal about speculating that maryland was lost because of its tax rate through virginia, some other companies. their income tax added with the local tabs. also what are the plans to keep improving the education system in mad? >> sure. on the -- let me talk about the taxes. this question was with maryland's income tax,

progressive income tax. do you see her as anti-competitive and perhaps driving jobs or driving piege to the virginia. and the second part is what are we doing to improve public education. about three years ago we put in place for the first time in our state was a progressive income tax. we lowered income taxes for 85% of maryland resident es and we increased income taxes for 15% of maryland residents. we had one flat rate to having it graduate the more you earned the greatest -- the slightly grater the percentage that you play. there are many predictions at that time, the whoa drow wilson bridge will be clogged, that did not happen. i think we -- i think we ranked, you know, number one or

somewhere big. we had to bury the top of the country. and the numbers of millionaires on a per capita basis that we have in our state. as far as job creation goes, depending on the period of time or how you measure it. fit you look at net new job creation compared to our neighbors in virginia. i think you want strong neighbors. if you have a store and you're going in a mall, you want that mall to be vibrant. and you want the other stores in the mall to also be attracted to people. we like the fact that we have a strong neighborhood in virginia. but in terms of maryland's competitiveness and what we offer. so far this year maryland ranks

10th in this new job creation among the 50 states. >> we're now in roughly november, october whatever the latest month was. virginia ranks 49th i believe on the year. and their unemployment is a little lower than ours. our unemployment is a little higher. together, we make a tremendous region. and so, you know, we continue to compete. we never like to lose at headquarters to virginia. but at the same time there aren't many things in terms of economic strength that i would trade with virginia. our tax code is more favorable when it comes to new investment s. we have the best schools in the country three years in a row. our colleges have become more affordable while others have

been less affordable. the innovation as sets that we have and i.t. and biotech are superior to those in virginia. they do have a lot more land than we do, though. i'd like to have more land. but other than that there,'s not a lot i would trade with virginia. they're good people and we're glad to have strong neighbors. >> what are some of the lessons from the 201 cycle? >> moderator question. wins and defeats in 2011. the lessons from that. i think the biggest lesson is that people are pragmatic and that people are not fundamentally ideological to make our economy grow and to expand opportunity and to create jobs. i think that -- i think the

lesson in 2011 is that if he got him to speak, you know, because of my perspective of what i'm here. i mean if you look at keth, that was a state that the president did not win. and yet, our candidate won by a huge margin in kentucky against a long-serving senat president in kentucky. you'd look at west virginia again, a state president obama did not win. but our candidate prevailed even after weathering a huge barrage. out of state, rga dollars that. the lesson is that the voters are paying closer attention than perhaps many pundits gave

them credit for. and they do not like overreach. they do not like ideology. and they do not like mean-spirited usness. and they want us all to bring people together in jobs and job creation. i think the -- you know, a similar lesson, they taught us in the mid terms and that was that having failed to explain the fiscal imperative and the economic imperative of hale care, they thought we were overreaching as a party and pushing something that's in the wheel house of our care and compassion for philosophy without regard to the primary concern that moms and dads are concern right now which is keeping a roof over their head. and i think that's the lesson. that voters are paying attention and they do not like

that. it may excite the tea party and crowds at the republican debates but it is not what mainstream america wants from their sort of leaders. >> questions. also last week we saw the democratic candidates in mississippi and canada. the number of those states -- you're not going to be contesting rates. but somebody who has a leadership role. what is the road map to rebuild their strength in parts of the deep south where they're really struggling right now. -- right now? >> repeating the question, what do we do about the deept south, how do we rebuild our party in the deep south? >> you know, i think that -- i don't care if you're from the north or the west, i think all -- i think everybody wants

their government to actually work for the taxes that they pay. and you know, you look at the good mike bi birvings was doing for arkansas. i think he was featured on the cover. governor bibi communicates very directly with the people he serves. and he makes his government work. and he's to cussed every day on creating jobs, expanding funt and glowing our middle-class. >> governor purdue in north carolina has been fighting a courageous fight and it appears that her approval numbers are reflectable the public's approval of her fight to defense -- defend it. some states we have tougher

times than others because of the 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 win to governing success for i think that time worked in any part of our country. you also see a country that is changing demographically. and becoming more diverse. that diversity brings us tremendous strength and creativity and do you think uc growing numbers of latino families who are coming into our

country and making this american dream mark. they believe very much in our country's future and the message of democratic governors. i did not enter that gentleman's school question. we have a number of things on our website. aryland,gov, we have 15 strategic goals for our state. health, sustainability, security of our people, the skills of our people. all four of those endeavors are about job creation. all four of those endeavors are related to one another. part goal of improving student achievement in our state can be found there, and along with a plan for doing that. things like continuing to make investments in school

construction. we have invested a record amount and the last four years. it is the skills to compete initiative, where we are pushing for more career and technical education and for greater access in our community colleges. 40% of the new jobs credible require only a certificate or a two-year degree. we also are adopting a common core curriculum. our children can be benchmark on their performance against children all over the world.

we have also been working in a fiscal financial literacy component, as well as an environmental literacy component to our curriculum. those are some of the things we are doing. in areas where dropout problem is chronic, we are doing some innovative things, especially in baltimore city. they've brought their dropout rate by a greater amount on a year-to-year basis than they ever had. twilight schools and other things. it is all there on the website. maryland.gov.

we believe that education investments are economic investments. the more they learned, at the more they produce. the deliver a plan is there, as it is with the cleanup of the day -- bay. >> questions? >> i have a must question. -- one last question. can you give any advice to those on the super committee? >> the advice to those on the super committee would be to -- i do not know. that is a great question. first and foremost, we cannot give up. they cannot give up. the second thing is that all of us need to keep -- pushed the national interest first. -- put the national interest

first. they depend on us to make the right decisions. especially in times as precarious as these. you mentioned in your remarks something about my taking a much more aggressive posture towards republicans. i think our country really desperately needs the party of lincoln again. i would like to think that in some ways, i am taking a much more understanding and more -- a much more understanding approach to my republican colleagues. we cannot allow ourselves to believe that any one party ever has all the answers. we need each other. we are part of an ongoing story. we need the party of lincoln to reemerge. we need that party of fiscal responsibility to reemerge, that

party of security to reemerge. we have to recognize the unity that is and find ways to work together in a more understanding why. whatever the current the torah -- detour that their party is going through, pandering to the tea party, there are a lot of really good people that are republicans and believe in fiscal responsibility. believed in the generous, caring nation that our parents and grandparents made for us. we need to find that bigness. need to find the understanding to not ever allow ourselves to become a victim to our own political crockery. we have to find ways to work in the middle. hopefully, they will find a way to undo that self-inflicted

wound of the bush era tax cuts. we will find a way to make medicare and medicaid more effective so that we can save dollars and care for the citizens who need it. my advice is to search for understanding in one another. look for the partially good intentions in one another. never give up. >> any more questions? thank you for coming out. this concludes our program.

>> in a few moments, jon huntsman on jobs and the economy. a forum on state voting law changes and voters' rights, hosted by house democrats. after that, on "washington journal tomorrow morning, charles black.

democratic representative sheila jackson lee of texas discusses federal spending and the work of the joint deficit reduction committee. we will look at the administration's efforts to help home buyers. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 eastern. >> c-span.org it's easier to use. there is a section on the home page to access our most popular series and programs. we have added a channel finder so you can quickly find work to watch our networks on cable or satellite systems across the country.

>> wednesday, up watch live streaming coverage of the animal awards from new york -- of the annual book awards from new york city. this weekend, book tv is live from the miami book fair in international. find a complete schedule, at -- online at booktv.org. >> jon huntsman talked about his jobs plan and the economy at the brookings institute today. the plan calls for changes in the tax code and new trade policies to stimulate growth. this is 45 minutes.

>> we did something like this in 2008 with both republicans and democrats. our guest this afternoon is gov. john huntsman. the former governor of utah. today's discussion will focus on the economy, jobs, tax reform, the budget. he will ally in his comprehensive plan to create jobs and revive the economy. it is also a great pleasure to welcome his daughter and her husband. this is the third time brookings

has hosted governor huntsman. we had the pleasure twice before when he was the ambassador of china. at the 16th governor of utah, his economic 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. he has argued foreign-policy is critical for national security and for economic growth. he has been a businessman, a political leader, and a statement. we're very pleased he is able to join us today. this session will take the form

of a discussion between the co- director of our economic studies program. he was a professor at georgetown and served in the bush administration under hank paulson. [applause] >> thank you, john. thank you, governor, for being here. >> i am the first of the candidates. there must be a reason nobody else has appeared. >> let's start off with the most pressing problem we face, the labor market problem. we have lost nearly 9 million jobs. we have had some job gains in the last year, but not enough to keep up with normal job growth.

we are, at best, treading water. 9% unemployment. it is a staggering problem. one number that one of my colleagues points out, if we were to get 200,000 jobs per month, it would still take 12 years to get back to where we were pre recession. tell us about your plan and what you envision. what role does the federal government have? >> what i learned as governor, i would apply as president. a leader through -- canyons -- can influence a state or a country's level of competitiveness. we did back in the state of utah. a great state. we made it number one in job creation. the made it the most attractive destination for business.

we worked on innovative education policies. the job training programs. we looked at but we needed to do it in our states. to compete and a region, the western region of the united states, in ways that would set us apart from others. when you stop to think that the brain leaving your state, going somewhere else. if you're a college graduates are leaving, that is a bad sign. that is your intellectual firepower for the future. if you're on duper norris are not active, if investment is not -- if investment is not landing in your marketplace, it is landing somewhere else. it will flee work effort it perceives there to be risked and the market. it was not landing in our

marketplace, so what to do. you have to create an environment that speaks to the attraction of brain power. you have to create a marketplace -- we kind of looked at where we wanted to be. utah is a unique state. you have natural resources, geography, well educated and talented workforce. you have a commitment to the firm. very loyal people. how the free that up? i got together a group. dozens of business leaders, stakeholders, academics, to say, if you had to choose 10 things to revitalize the economy, what would it be? it cannot be 100 things.

it county town things, or five things or three things. -- it can be 10 things. or 5 or 3. it started with tax reform. we had an old-fashioned system. i guess to describe it as a dilapidated anachronous stem -- anachronistic system from the 1950's. if you're going to compete with the likes of colorado or idaho or texas, you have to do better. we came up with a tax reform program. we filled our first time before the legislature. we succeeded the second year. we delivered a flat tax. we faced out loopholes and deductions, not in total.

that was my going in position, i wanted them all gone. that is politically treacherous. if you want to buy down the rate, you have to raise the revenue. you have to reinvest the code. what we did produce was better than we had before. what it did is it confused sense of confidence into the marketplace. people talked about it. people started working -- writing about the utah market. people would come out and do mart -- articles. that had a reenforcing aspect to it. investment begins to flow in march. your hot market and brain power is attracted to your local university. revenues increased.

we were able to triple the rainy day fund. we were able to make investments in our state. putting innovative programs into the classroom, like early childhood development, expanding choice. at the higher levels, coming up with centers of excellence that would attract brain power. in singapore, their lesson of economic policy, open the floodgates for brain power. in utah, we can stay ahead of the competition. we have to make sure our competitive in parliament is conducive to attracting the

elements that an economy needs for success. this is totally applicable because we need to infuse a sense of confidence into this economy. there is capital, but there are great ideas, we have the most innovative created class the world has ever seen. 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 capital expenditures into the marketplace. it is not inspiring folks to hire. we must create an environment that speaks to 21st century competitiveness. it is not going to be easy and you cannot do it overnight. attracting capital, attracting brain power.

why is this important? i think we have an opening in terms of rebuilding our manufacturing muscle. a lot of people said, those days are gone. i was born in 1960. we exported $3 for every $2 we imported. 25% of our gdp was manufacturing. we have an opening here, why? 9% tos gdp is going to what will be four or five or six%. with that, there will be higher unemployment in china. that always carries with it an element of political uncertainty. that investment that will be looking for an alternative. we would be stupid in this country if we did not say, we will be that alternative.

and we will address the deficiencies in our competitive environment. and we will when that investment year. it also assumes that you have a president who can sit down with the manufacturing alliance, the chamber of commerce and some folks, i know you of capital expenditures planned for all corners of the world, but i have a request. we want you to do it here. i want you to go back to your boards of directors and think again about where you will deploy these capital expenditures. we're going to rebuild our manufacturing muscle. in exchange for that, i will fix taxes. i will create a regulatory environment that is conducive to predictability and growth. we will take steps towards energy and do -- energy independence. >> you mentioned tax reform. their plan is endorsing one of

the fiscal conditions. they had an array of tax rates you could choose from. you could have lowered marginal tax rates, but you have to eliminate some of these expenditures. your plan is that 3 brackets. the frustration is jury frequently, you have seen -- is very frequently, you have seen them come out with these plans. each one of these tax expenditures, you did a lot of political figures sank, this is a good idea, but not the mortgage interest deduction. in order to get those lower rates, they are suggesting that would have to be funded by a and elimination of the earned income-tax credit. i do not know which of those --

are you dedicated to getting rid of all tax expenditures? are we back in to picking and choosing? >> the work that was done by simpson-bowles, i laud. the president and a tactical error by throwing it in the garbage can. it was done in a bipartisan fashion. on tax reform, you have to assume that this has to get through congress. i look to what my colleagues are doing on the presidential campaign front. 9-9-9 does not start anywhere. mitt romney nibbles of around the edges. rick perry has got a flat tax,

which we deliver to the people in utah. but it is an option. it retains the current codes. we ought to think big, we are either bolten or you do not do it at all. if you were gone to take this step toward the board proposal, you have to pass the state faced a test. -- straight face test. something is there that is worth liking. if the wall street journal comes out and say, and jon huntsman, at that crazy guy. there is an opportunity we have to bring together a a necessary

coalition, bipartisan coalition. in the end, that is how you have to get it done. by going in position would be, i want all loopholes and deductions gone. sensitive as it might be. it is a negotiation. you have to get the work of the people don. you have to start someplace. we are not doing the work of the people. we are camped out on the extreme end of politics. we are not doing the work of the people. if you are going to do the work of the people, you have to put something on the table that at least stand a chance. that will be a fierce negotiations, no doubt about it. in the end, you have to raise enough revenue to reinvested in the code section so you can get the rate down.

i will love to and the exercise right were reported on the table. it would be a, 14, 23%. it does not have the sound of 9- 9-9, i will admit. but it cleans out the cobwebs. >> these negotiations have started where they finished. frequently, that is the problem. maybe you can clarify. one of the challenges -- we do not want a tax increase, but it is unclear what is meant as a tax increase. others would suggest we do not want any tax revenue increase.

how far you willing to go if you were going to do this trade-off of some of these marginal tax rates? these tax expenditures will be added back in. are you looking for a tax revenue neutrality. is it a die-hards position. or is that something we negotiate and compromise. >> year ago and with certain principles. -- you go and with certain principles. i'm willing to raise revenues that are anathema to some people, both on the individual income side and the corporate side, by phasing out corporate welfare. we cannot afford it anymore. it distorts the system such that we need to get smart about the 21st century. phase out subsidies. i would -- for some, going back part is too far. -- that far is too hard.

i would reinvested back into the coach and allow that to lower the rate and take it forward. i would also used a bipartisan coalition. i would use the business community to help make the arguments about what this means to job creation. i think in the end, if you can make a valid argument about what tax reform means to be firing our engines of growth around job creation, that argument is going to carry the day. we need to expand our economic base and we need to pay the bills. that is the theme. we're doing this because we have not touched taxes since 1986. there are leading competitor

countries, they have dealt with taxes, market opening measures, we have not. we have to act or we will see the end of the american century by 2015. that is the price too high for anybody to be paying. >> it is tax revenue neutral. nonetheless, we have an expenditure side problem. if it is revenue neutral, the key contributor is going to be the future deficits. it is gone to be the mounting cost of longevity. my oversimplification -- we can get this under control if you

give experts political independence and they pick the most cost-effective medical procedures that medicare should cover. everything else, you have to do at a pocket. that is how we get sensible restraint on medicare. on the rights, we will do a voucher and we will grow that doctor at a lower level. -- that the voucher at the lower level. we do have to buy the fact that we are revenue neutral on tax reform and we have to do something on the expenditure side. what is your vision on reducing expenditures? >> we have to start with the assumption that all options are on the table. if you were going to do this and do it right, we have no choice.

take a blood at the numbers and it is a painful exercise. you hit the wall if you do not hit it -- do it right. you of medicare, social security, and that is it. you are out of gas. we cannot not act. we have to do something. everything is on the table. what paul ryan has put on the table for medicare i think is valid. it is a realistic approach, the premium support system. the bifurcation at age 55 the above which the status quo prevails. below which we have a defined contribution marketplace. that is where we need to go. we need to figure out overall

how to take costs out of health care. i did not mean to oversimplify it, but when you figure that this is a $3 trillion industry and any expert will tell you that half of that number is superfluous spending. that is for you start. how do we begin empowering the patient? when they walk into the doctor's office, they know what is available. they are not walking into an office in which a foreign language is spoken. in today's environment, nobody knows what health care costs are. this is a backdrop to medicare, but totally irrelevant. in the longer term, it will all mean something. we also have to recognize that the world is different today.

in 1935, the average age of 61.7 years. the assumption was he worked for 40 years. that is a pretty good deal. today, we're upside down. the rate of return is 3%. you have fewer people take -- pain in -- taking and then hanging out. we have to fix the underlying assumptions on social security enticed more to wage growth. having means testing component with the top third wage earners and the country. i think you can deal with a big part of the problem by doing

this. it is a shared sacrifice. i think you can pushout eligibility age to the 98% -- the 98th percentile. we can deliver on the original intent and promise back in 1935. this is all about leadership. it is about political will. i believe it is the will of the people. to get our spending in line with that which is sustainable. it also has to be made into an argument about national security. for me, that is an argument. when your desk become 70% of gdp, -- you just don't grow

anymore. when you don't grow, you cannot compete. there are some competitive aspects to this that make it a national security argument. look around at greece or italy, and i remember with my negotiations with japan 10 years ago. nonperforming loans, structural barriers and impediments. today, they're entering in their third decade of lost growth. third decade. if you do not want to address the debt and spending, you can see where it takes to overtime. >> i want to shift gears. you have extensive experience in china. this is a little bit of a change of pace. governor romney said he would

list china as a currency manipulator. this is something a bill went through the senate saying the same thing. proposing to impose tariffs. what do you think of such policies? what are the possible perils of strong economic growth in china for the u.s.? >> first of all, let's call it what it is. is this pandering. the reality is far different. what are you going to do at the wto? there is no provision for a case on currency.

i lived through the 421 tires dumping case in china. i thought this is not a good thing, but the president is going to do what he wants to do. what happens after the penalty was assessed at 1.7 billion. the chinese came up with a similar countermeasure toward our chicken parts. completely disrupting our poultry producers. that is the way the game is played these days. we are back to the united states and china sitting down in a negotiation and grinding about. it is not just about currency. you have north korea, at the position in iran, pakistan, you

have new energy technologies, you have a whole lot of things you're trying to carve into a broad based dialogue with the chinese. like it or not, you're left with a reality that you have to sit down and cried out at the negotiating table. same thing that president reagan discovered. i went with president reagan in the early 1980's to china. he campaigned in 1980 on with trying our diplomatic recognition from 1979 and recognizing taiwan. once you become president, even back in those early days, you have to factor in the chinese. it is their 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 margins of aipac or nt 20 -- apec or g- 20. that will be the future of the relationship. through that, trying somehow to infuse shared values into a relationship that has been based on shared interest. we trade, we invest, and we do all the economics staff, a little bit of regional security. we need a whole lot more in the way of shared values to give it the staying power that we will need for the first and second largest economies in of the world. that will be broadening the dialogue on political reform.

a more nationalistic view of the world, by the way. that will carry some challenges for cause. we need to expand it around human rights, the insect the role of the internet in society, religious liberties. these are all things we should be expanding our debate around. you have a young generation of folks coming up, 500 million internet users, who are having these discussions anyway. you have the raw material in china to have these discussions. the party is reading of the blogs. they know they have to make some accommodations in the years to come. if not, there is a train wreck in the making. there is no reason why we should not be providing a little bit of

intellectual context. >> i think we have [unintelligible] right here. >> thank you. i want to ask you a question about to the one thing we have not talked about today. you make a very persuasive case about what should be done in the realm of economics and fiscal policy. it suggest that you bring a lot to the table. if you were to become president, what changes -- i

think it's fair to say that we know that rule 22 and the stranglehold of the rules committee has in the house, the extent to which regular order has become a an oxymoron suggest that no matter how well prepared and how thoughtful the next president is, he or she is going to have to deal with an institution that holds the purse strings and is in a state that makes it difficult for good government to take place. i would be interested in hearing you talk about two things. the extent to which you have thought about the structural problems that the congress deals with. what role could a president play in the bringing some change so

that governments could have a chance and the country again? >> we have to figure out ways to enhance trust in the system. i do not have an easy answer for you. when i was reelected, 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. what do you do to enhance believability in our democracy, tickets kids more invested -- to get kids more invested in our future? what is driving the apathy? is it campaign financing? is that the role of lobbyists? is the lack of term limits? we put some people to the test

to kind of make up a report that would outlined some steps that could be taken. shortly thereafter, i was taken to china. 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. pd

>> we turn now to jerry nadler whose long service on the house judiciary committee makes it important that we recognize him at this point. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i will make a short statement and to questions. it is obvious what is going on. i was a little surprised to hear what of the witness is talking about educating state legislators. they know what is going on. this is an organized effort to

disenfranchise millions of voters, minority voters, older voters, young riders, student boulders and for political purposes. -- young voters. student voters for political purposes. someone talked about how poor people wanted to just use the votes to rob the other people. that is straight of the federalist priority of 1800. the jeffersonian democrats did not agree with that then. the whigs did not agree with it eventually. it has taken until now to come back. we have seen this as a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise poor people, because some people think that taxation is theft. and poor people -- if they vote, they will use it to extract money to rich people. and that is improper, so let's restrict them from voting because they did not have a stake in society anyway.

we had a member of this committee that basically said he was in favor of property -- restoring proper requirements for voting because only people with property have skin in the game. going on.at's it's fomented by billionaires and by the republican party leadership and by alec. educatingon't think republican legislators will do too much, with some honorable exceptions. they are in on the conspiracy. the question is how to beat this conspiracy. it is every bit as concerted as the jim crow conspiracy. it's an attempt. what we're seeing in the legislation -- that map, by the way, is a little misleading. because it shows under yellow states where such bills are

pending. where we have democratic majorities and they are introduced by republican members, those 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 it might get through. new york? do not worry about it. it will not happen in new york. in any event, my question is the following -- this is a war against civil rights and voting rights. it is an attempt to use what election, the election of 2010, a majority obtained in that election it to perpetuate those majorities in future elections by taking away the right to vote from people who might not vote this "right way." i have a number of questions. the attorney general testified in front of the senate last week said that protecting the right

to vote would be a priority. they only brought one section two case. ms. murphy, under sectoiiknoon two, is there any reason why you could not attack all the laws in any state? >> one thing is that these cases are expensive for groups like the aclu, the lawyers committee, and investment -- investment project to bring. >> the justice department could not attack? >> the justice department would have to devote more resources to this. and they claim that they are, and we met with the attorney general of month ago and brought this issue up, but we have not seen the movement. but it is a fact. you do have to prove discriminatory effect. >> yes. and we will push that with him, too. let me ask one other question.

in congress, assuming we have a majority here that was more sympathetic than the current majority, could we, without racially disparaging questions, because we have done that already in 1965 -- it is a question of enforcing it -- could we pass legislation under the of 14th amendment with respect to state elections or a live with respect to elections that affect federal elections as was done before the 18-year-old vote and the help american vote -- the motor voter act. with respect to federal elections and alexian's that affect federal elections, like elections -- and elections that affect federal elections, party endorse candidates are also fair game. could we do it with the state elections? >> i think you would be more

vulnerable to a constitutional challenge, especially with this supreme court. you are on much stronger footing and bringing it under the 14th amendment and asserted jurisdiction over federal related acts. yes. >> and realistically, our experience has been that states do not run dual elections. that if in fact the federal requirement is there, they will conform to the federal. >> that is the experience. i will tell you a new york right now, we're we may be forced to move the primary up because of the federal law on military ballots, some people in the state senate are suggesting we hold a separate federal primary and a separate state primary, even though it would cost $50 million. new york has plenty of money,

except in the budget. do you see any -- ms. murphy, do you see any first amendment problem in legislation that would make a criminal to misinform voters by saying, democrats or black people or whoever wrote wednesday? >> the aclu is the oldest and and largest organization devoted to defending the bill of rights, and ease of first amendment issues are challenging for the aclu -- these first amendment issues are challenging for the aclu. we have right in this country even to make incorrect statements. and so we, we are concerned that the statute, the narrowly tailored to make sure that people's free-speech rights are not intrude upon, but also that we are criminalizing actions and not speeches. so you've got to draw --

>> you could drive nearly based on false advertising statutes? >> i do not know that we are big fans of the false advertising statutes at the aclu, but you can look at behavior, actions taken, timeline to make a case that a certain type of communication is clearly designed to impede another constitutional right, but you do have to take into account the first amendment rights as well as the equal protection clause and all the other amendments that have been passed, the 19th and 15th amendments, the 24th and 26. >> my last question is much more specific. i raised it at a meeting with harry shelton, when she was presentt -- qwas in mr. hoyer's office a couple weeks ago.

in attacking a voter i.d. law, as for example is permitted use t aa gun license, bu tnot no college i.d. could you use that disparity as evidence of invidious intent or invidious discrimination on the grounds that the proof necessary for a college i.d. is at least as necessary is that you need to get a gun license, in fact more so, and if the legislature says that the more difficult to get i.d. is not sufficient, because we do not like college students voting, but the more easily i.d. gun licenses because we like the voters voting, could use that as a constitutional wedge? >> i think so.

>> barbara, do you have any? >> one of the biggest problems we have, of course, is that this current supreme court has cost -- as constituted has been a very deferential to states about their collection systems. that is one of the consequences we have had an attacking a lot of the voter disenfranchisement laws. so it is not very clear, but i think the case should be made, should be brought and should be pursued. i also wanted to go back for a minute to the map. i just wanted to point out that the map, the yellow relate is telling people reminding people that you have to be vigilant. the folks never thought rhode island because it was a democratic controlled that would enact a voter identification requirement, and it did. people did not think that there

states likether maine that this would not happen because of the history, because it is happening. >> fair point. >> going back a voter i.d. case that did make it to the supreme court in in, which was decided on favorably on a 6-3 vote of the supreme court. the supreme court gave great deference to state election officials and said they were not required to show a discriminatory impact. that their goal -- if their goal was the elimination of fraud, that was good enough. but they did leave that door open to a -- >> that was a facial challenge. >> so i think we would be able to demonstrate, and the aclu has at least four lawsuits in the

pipeline against voter i.d. requirements in various states to go at what we think is the loophole in the supreme court's's decision in crawford in 2008. >> how would you define that loophole? >> say that again? >> how would you define that loophole? >> as applied. in other words, after these are in place, we would then have to demonstrate that they had a disparate racial impact or some other impact that was unconstitutional. >> section 2 challenge in advance on disparate racial impact would be tough going? >> it is more challenging after crawford. so we really want to challenge to these as soon as they become law, but we do not want to lose, so we want to make sure we have all of the data. >> what you are saying is that

we will have to live with these for a couple elections. >> it is possible. we have to avoid them. but we have to look at main and ohio and look at how people organize, even after the state legislature acted and the governor signed it, they organized ballot referendums. >> we have referendum possibilities. >> right. i do want a say the aclu does support a ban on deceptive practices in voting. but i just want to say that the band has to be nearly taylor. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house rules committee considers a bill that would allow folks to carry firearms across state lines. "washington journal" live at seven easton was segments on politics, defense spending, and aid for home buyers. -- with segments on

politics, defense spending, and aid for home buyers. marco rubio will be interviewed at 8:15 eastern on c-span to. on c-span 3, defense secretary leon panetta discusses iran's security-- iraq's before the senate armed services committee. >> watched live streaming coverage of the annual book awards from new york city. the award ceremony starts at 6:00 p.m. eastern. but tv on c-span-2 is live from the miami book fair international with george mcgovern, jim rest of burger, rimbaud kennedy, harry belafonte and others. find the complete schedule online at booktv.org. >> the c-span.org home page is

now easier to use. the new design features 11 video choices making it easier to watch today's events live and recorded. there is a section to access our morris popular series like "washington journal", "booktv" and "the contenders." we have added a channel finder as well. at the all their c-span.org -- the all new c-span.org. >> the house rules committee worked out a bill that would allow gun toters with the proper permits to carry firearms across state lines. this is a little less than two hours.

>> we are here for consideration of the national right to carry reciprocity act of 2011. we are happy to welcome the chairman on the judiciary. please come for, chairman smith. we are also anticipating that bobby scott will be joining you. first of all, welcome back to all of the members of the rules committee. i hope everyone had a productive week. and we have, as i think everyone who has looked at the schedule is aware, a very, very busy schedule. they tried to convince me it was every day this week. we plan to meet almost every day. we will meet today, tomorrow, and when state and will have a full schedule going into friday -- today, tomorrow and wednesday and will have a full schedule going into friday. welcome to my good friend, mr.

smith. any prepared statement you have will appear and the record and we welcome your summary. >> i will give a brief statement and we will be happy to answer questions. i appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding the national right to carry reciprocity act of 2011. hr 822 is introduced by mr. stearns of florida. it is co-sponsored by 245 members from both sides of the aisle. it provides a law-abiding gun owners with permits or licenses to carry a concealed firearm and any other state that also allows concealed carry. this legislation does not preempt a state's ability to set concealed carry requirements for its residents. it would permit people to carry concealed firearms to recognize other states very it concealed carry permits. hr 822 does not affect state

laws gathering -- governing how fire arms are carried. a person entering another state, must apply with other laws within that state. studies show that carrying concealed weapons reduces violent crime rates by deterring would-be assailants and by allowing law abiding citizens to defend themselves. in 1997 a study published by john lotton, -- estimated that when state concealed handgun laws went into effect in the county, murray's fell by 7% and aggravated assaults fell by a similar percentage. the study has been replicated and the results confirmed by other scholars. this bill simply allows americans to travel to take

their second amendment rights with them. congress previously passed laws to prevent certain active duty and retired law-enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons into other states. this bill extends the same ability to all law abiding citizens. hr822 is such a -- subject to a legislative hearing and was considered and approved by the committee on october 25. i request the rules committee grant an appropriate role that a lot for expeditious consideration of hr822. >> thanks for your hard work on this. i am impressed with one of the points you made. recognition of states' rights is a very important provision that you have in this measure. >> the spill recognize the states' rights in two very substantive and serious ways -- this bill recognizes states' rights. if the state voted not to allow individuals to have a concealed- carry permit, an individual

cannot carry weapons or guns or firearms into that state. the only state in that category is illinois, no one would be able to carry weapons into that state. another way to respect state rights is if the state does not allow concealed-carry permit holder into their state to go into a public building or a bar with a firearm, and individual coming from out of state cannot do any of those things, either. it respects local and state laws. >> thank you very much. we appreciate that. mr. sessions? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. chairman smith, thank you for appearing today. this has been talked about since i have been in congress and a long time before. i have been a co-sponsor of this effort and strong support it. the facts that you presented from mr. john lott, who speaks

about our ability to protect ourselves as a right we have, but with a profound effect upon crime, a deterrent to crime, do you have any more information about that? we found in texas that at the time that we did this, literally crime went down. >> crime typically goes down 6% to 7% whenever a state has implemented concealed-carry permits. you asked if there was additional information. there have been 18 studies that have showed the crime rate has dropped and dropped precipitously when a concealed- carry permit was allowed in that state. there have been zero studies indicating that the crime rate has increased. >> this is once again an indication of how important, as

you characterize it, being able to carry forth your constitutional rights, especially second amendment where you go. i think the one question i missed this if the state does not have or washington, d.c. does not have this ability, how does this bill treat that? >> if a state or washington, d.c. does not allow an individual to have a concealed- carry, then the reciprocity would not hold in those cases. and you would be recognizing the washington, d.c. rights or state rights. they would not have to allow someone to cross their borders with a concealed-carry. >> to me, that shows great respect for others, which i think is what this bill is about is respecting everybody is constitutional rights and also the legislative intent. i will be in full support of this bill. >> mr. scott, we begin the questioning. if he would like to offer some

comments? >> i would ask my statement to be placed in the record. a follow-up question. did i understand hindus say that if you had an of a state permit and go on a state, you have to comply with the regulations in that state, even though you are not entitled to a permit in that state?" >> there is one state, in addition to the district of columbia, where there has been an affirmative decision made not to issue concealed-carry permits. under this bill, he would not be allowed to take firearms and to those jurisdictions. that is correct. >> but if you live in one state and are not qualified to get a concealed weapons permit in your state and want to go to another state to get a concealed weapons permit, you can use that concealed weapons permit anywhere except your home state.

you can run around the country, even though you are not entitled to get a permit, and even though the state you go to would not let you get a concealed permit because of convictions you have are some other reason. >> mr. chairman, may i respond to that? you have a situation in america where there are 49 states to have and allow concealed-carry permits. there are 40 states that follow reciprocity. this -- what this bill allows is a federal standard to apply to all those states. to repeat what i said in to get more to the subject at hand, if the state says to its own residents that you can not, if you have a concealed-carry permit you cannot go into a public place. it might be a school or a public building or whatever, you are still not allowed to go into those buildings if you are coming from out-of-state. but there will be instances where there is a slight difference between states and what their standards are to give or issue a concealed-carry.

if the state has a concealed- carry, we ask that you would be able to go into that state regardless. the idea is to have consistency and store it spect state rights. and also local jurisdictions it -- the idea is to have consistency and respect states' rights and local jurisdictions. >> you are not entitled to get a weapon because of convictions, the state has decided that people with certain convictions cannot get a permit, you can go to another state, you get a concealed weapons permit, and the permit would have to be accepted anywhere, even though if you are in virginia, you can go to utah in get a permit and that can go all over north carolina and could not go with a concealed weapons permit, where i was not able to get a concealed weapons permit in virginia or not -- and north carolina would not a lot because of certain convictions or other kinds of problems.

event that you are going to have one state that is going to be the concealed weapons permit state. we are not sure whether you have to show up in person. you can order the thing over the internet and pay a fee. your good everywhere but your home state. >> let me address what the gentleman virginia said. when it comes to convictions, everyone convicted of a felony is not eligible to get a permit. they cannot get a permit if they have been convicted for other felonies like domestic violence. where sex crimes might be considered by that state to be a misdemeanor and not a felony as they are in other states, that is not a problem with a concealed-carry bill. that is a problem with those states. those states decide those crimes are sufficiently severe and should be -- and then that individual should not be eligible to get a permit. that is not a problem with the

bill. it is a problem with the states that are not taking these crimes seriously enough. >> some states require you to have some minimum degree of training so that if you are carrying a permit you know what you are carrying. these little variations -- the state should decide if you have certain convictions you should not be able to carry a concealed weapon. to carry a concealed weapon, you have to have certain training. and so you have people coming into your state untrained with convictions that prohibit them from getting a concealed weapons permit in that state. that is why the international association of chiefs of police, the police foundation, national police officers' associations, black law enforcement executives all oppose the legislation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in response to what he said, mr. scott, when the doctor was killed.

we did some studies to see what most of us had grown up believing was a sanctuary -- it is a building. it is no longer that. the number of people who are killed during church services or any kind of religious services was appalling to us. the number of law enforcement, people killed in the line of duty has increased exponentially. i am not happy to see this bill. it means that we're not going to do anything in this house about creating jobs anywhere. let me speak about my own state here for a minute. a new york person is convicted of sex crimes. this bill would override that? new york prohibits people convicted of sex crimes from carrying weapons. does this bill override that? >> it would depend on the level of the sex crime. if they are felonies, the law

would not allow those individuals to get a concealed- carry. >> if you can get a concealed weapons permit in your home state, you could bring it to new york and a permit is good notwithstanding the fact that new york had a different idea of her >> do i understand that if you live in new york and go to utah, and get a permit, you go back to new york -- >> you cannot come back to your home state, but you can go to any other state with your permit. >> one of the things, too -- new york denies a firearm permits for persons with domestic violence incident. 14 states require good moral character. that is all over written here as well. this would allow domestic violent abuser across state lines. >> no. if there is a misdemeanor, is prohibited. they are prohibited from getting

a concealed-carry. i want to go back to the point made a minute ago. i do not consider it the fault of the legislation that states decided that some crimes are not serious enough to be considered felonies. if the state you are from decides that some sex crime only can be determined to be a misdemeanor -- >> i don't think so. >> in many cases, that is the case in new york, and i cannot explain why or how. >> "the new york times" this morning had a lengthy article on several pages on the numbers of felons throughout the country. many of them with mental problems and serious other things and how easy it was a for them to regain their gun permits. i want to recommend everybody that you look at that. but i think what bothers me most -- i would like to ask unanimous consent to put that in the

record. >> without objection. >> thank you. our colleague was grievously wounded 10 months ago, shot in the head, and by all accounts a man who was a superb federal justice was shot to death there. a nine-year-old girl who only wanted to go see your congressman was killed. federal employees were killed. >> were these individuals killed by those who work -- >> with gabrielle giffords. >> they were no injured or killed or maimed by an individual with a concealed- carry permit, i believe. >> i am assuming that he did not walk up there with guns blazing at the store. dead is dead. >> that has nothing to do with concealed-carry. >> you want everybody to have a gun. >> no. statement.naccurate

do not put words in my mouth. i do not want everybody to have a gun. that is clear from my opening statement. >> everyone has one. >> not everybody has a gun. not everybody shared. >> the second amendment rights. >> we are talking about a concealed-carry permit. we're not talking about other crimes and violence committed with weapons. >> i want to say this -- the rights given -- frankly, i never agreed with that. i believe is a well regulated militia that was handed up by general morgan and the revolutionary war that consisted of people who fought from the prairies and went back home with them. i believe that is what the second amendment is. in any case, what amendment protects that little girl and that judge and gabby giffords? what are they supposed to do? it's they're right?

are we supposed to learn to dodge bullets? what do we do? what do the rest of us do? >> with all due respect, we are here talking about concealed- carry permit. if you are in favor of gun control, that is a different issue. you are entitled to your opinion. >> i think it is all of the same piece, the same package. i am with law enforcement on this. >> you might want to prohibit all guns. i do not know if you want to or not, but that is the natural result of the policy you are describing. i do not agree, but that is not why we are here. >> frankly, i don't it does us any good to have so many citizens killed. i do not like people being killed. >> if you want to prohibit all guns, that is up to you, but gun-control goes beyond this bill. >> i do not think anybody ought would allow anybody to carry a

concealed weapon into a bar. >> they do not have to. if a state prohibits that, an individual with a permit cannot go into that bar or public building. >> i still would want to know where we can get an amendment to the constitution that would protect those of us to go about our daily business with some possibility we can get home from work or see our congressperson without fear of being shot to death. maybe we should it work on something like that. see what we can do. how gets these gun permits, many of them commit heinous crimes. >> if you want to reduce violent crime, then you would support a wider use of concealed-carry, because demonstrably it reduces crime. >> i do not see that. >> i will give you 18 stuidedies that show it reduces crime. there is not a single study that shows it reduces crime.

>> i will not take that on its face. that does not coincide with anything i have seen, anyway. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i want to thank chairman smith for his work on this bill and for bringing it to the house for its vote. thank chairman smith for his work on the bill and bringing it to the house for its vote. we all took an oath to uphold the constitution. in my opinion the right to carry is an integral part of our upholding the constitution. and frankly i don't think the founders intended for concealed carry to have been carved out as it has been in the past. so i'm very happy to see this bill come forward. i think if there were a definition, a true definition of

the term stw dog in the dictionary it's this last so soliliquy which as the chairman said had absolutely nothing to do with this legislation. i agree with the chairman that re widespread use of weapons by the law abiding public would do a great deal to bring down the crime rates in this country. and i appreciate very much your bringing this bill to us. i look forward to its passage by a wide margin in a bipartisan fashion. >> thank you very much. just a couple of things.

first of all the issue of states rights. my understanding is that if you get a permit to carry concealed weapon in one state, that would allow you to carry a concealed weapon in another state that may have had a higher standard of what would be required for you to get that license to begin with, that permit to begin w am i correct? some states require -- that is a state's right issue about who gets the permits to begin with. so when you say this doesn't do anything it does. it says to some states we want a higher standard in place before we get somebody permit. thatets overridden by somebody who gets a permit by somebody in a state that has very little standards. we've got -- mrs. slaughter talked about domestic violence.

38 states that prohibit individuals convicted of certain offenses such as stalking, domestic violence, impersonating a police officer from owning a gun. but this bill would override all that. so this is a state's rights matter. i sound confused because we have all these debates about how we want to get the federal government off people's backs and let the states decide what they want to do. here we're making a very specific carve out saying except when it comes to this. i'm just curious. >> what i think comes up with the common standard here, the states at least recognize a right for concealed carry permit. there may be different gradations between states. >> that's important. who gets a permit. what it takes to get a permit to begin with. >> they recognize the right. that right is something -- >> in a state that would require somebody to get certain amounts of training before they get it.

>> right. >> they may not necessarily -- the person who gets it in one state may not necessarily get it in another state. once he gets it, he can bring it all over the pla. >> to some extent that's true. you can go into a state that doest have the exact requirements of another state. >> that's a big deal. >> i hope it's a big deal to you and others to apply to others states. >> that is a big deal, what it takes to get a permit. >> the idea here is reciprocity. let me give you another example. different states have different requirements for driver's licens. yet other states recognize other state's driver's licenses even though there may be different distinctions as to what it takes to get a driver's license. that idea of reciprocity exists in any number of licenses including a conceal carry license. >> yield to the gentleman for a moment. i wonder if that well articulated reciprocity applies to marriage definitions between

the states. >> i suspect it applies to marriage license. >> including some states allow same-sex marriage licenses that would be good as well in other states as reciprocity. >> not always. not always. >> consistent -- >> i think i like my example better, the driver's licenses. >> in all matters of civil licenses, whether it's permission to drive, marriage, concealed weapon, i think there's a approach you indicated with regard to reciprocity. >> i think there's a lot more in common between a concealed carry an a driver's license than there is between licenses that deal with social behavior to tell you the truth. >> would you care to elaborate? these are, again, a legal recognitioof a particular item that's a civil function and generally has more of a ste sovereignty issue on those. again, for the convenience of our populous as a country, the argument would be why not have the reciprocity with regard to marriage as well.

>> i have a hunch you're going to be making that argument, are you not? >> back to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> again, i think there's a difference between a driver's license and the ability to carry concealed weapon into my state. do you have any comment why all these police chiefs organizations and police associations are against this bill? >> i'd have to let some of the associations i've heard about not what you might call mainstream law enforcement associations. i'd have to know more about the list and take a look at them. >> would the gentleman -- >> the international association of chiefs of police in major cities chiefs association, which is comprised of police chiefs of 56 major u.s. cities, i've got to say i think we're talking about -- fringe organizaons. >> public safety, who carries a concealed weapon within your jurisdiction is more of a question of public safety than who is married and who isn't married. that's not a question of public

safety. and so when you're talking about states rights, one of the reasons the police officers have a problem with this is if you find somebody with a concealed weapon, and they pull some paper out of their pocket that purports to be an out of state concealed weapons permit, they don't know what they are looking at. you get some sheriff in a county in massachusetts, and he's presented with some document that says it's from new mexico, is it valid? most of the states -- most of the states don't have 24-hour verification, so you can't call anybody. one of the reasons that virginia don't have reciprocity with several states is they do not have 24-hour verification. you can call some phone number and ascertain whether or not this guy has a concealed weapons permit or not. because they don't have the 24-hour verification, virginia does not have reciprocity with them because they want that

ability to verify. that's why the chiefs have a problem with this legislation. >> would the gentleman yield just a minute? let me respond. if all someone had to do was show a concealed carry permit alone, that might raise some questions. in point of fact you don't just have to show that, you have to show a government id as well. furthermore there's been a development there. you can check to make sure. there's an inlet system that allows law enforcement agencies and other state agencies to check the validity of out of state conceal permits. even if you're in a state that doesn't have the inlet system you can access that from out of state. there is a way to make sure the person who has the permit -- i've just been told it is now available 24 hours. i hope that's accurate. >> that's not what we were told during the hearing.

>> mr. do you have any more, mr. scott? >> no, except the verificion and you mentioned states rights. this is a big deal whether or not people with certain backgrounds ought to be carrying concealed weapons. that's a question the state makes and theurpose of this bill is to override that with the lowest common denominator. >> i just have one final comment, we came back from a recess. we all spent a week in our districts. i'm sure you spent a week in your district. i didn't run into a single person who talked about this issue. i ran into people who don't have jobs. i ran into people were concerned about whether they could afford to send their kids to college. i ran into people who are losing their homes. ran into people struggling small businessmen and women, making a living, saying what are you doing here in congress. wee doing is. i've got to be honest with you.

in the scheme of things and with the economic crisis we're dealing with, and i respect the work that gets done on the judiciary committee, we should be jobs every single day of the week. i find it very difficult to look at this as a jobs bill, to be honest with you. so i don't know what we're thinking here. but this is not what i heard back home. i'm willing to bet this is not what you heard back home either. >> actually i was going to point out there might be a difference between massachusetts and texas because when i brought this up at town meetings they were very interested in it. >> i bet some of the people in texas would also be interested in jobs, too, because we have an economic crisis we're trying to dig ourselves out of and they are looking for help in congress. ite frankly, with respect, this is not a problem to our economic problems in our country. we should begin with jobs bills instead of this, with all due respect. i yield back my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

it is really heartening for me to see this fealty toward federalism my friends on the democrat side have finally found. i assume because this thing is so unique we have extra lights here, the light has found this room. we'll now be dealing with states rights issues on a whole bunch of issues we've ignored in the past. i'm proud of that concept of federalism. let's hope you hold onto that constitutional concept for the remainder of the session as strongly as you have tonight. i know deep down inside you understand why the founding fathers wrote that concept. without seeing specifically into the document itself. mr. smith, could i ask a question? i don't know if the phrase, the lautenberg amendment is something of which you are familiar. >> yes, to some extent. >> how does this bill impact the lautenberg amendment that was

passed in the '80s, '90s, which would deny -- >> when i think of the amendment at least as it's been discussed recently, it has to do with refugees coming from the soviet union. so i don't think that would be related. >> this one dealt we before i came here with the ability of someone to have a concealed weapon permit if they were convicted or had been accused of the domestic violence event even if they happen to be a member of the law enforcement community. i realize at the time the law enforcement community was violently opposed to that but congress seemed to pass that amendment anyway. does this bill have some kind of impact on that or would leave it the same way it is. >> i understand it does not have any imct on that. >> so that effort of the federal government to dictate to states what would be or would not be gun policy, which would not fit with federalism but w accepted by a lot of people who are still here on the other side, that has

no impact then. >> that's correct. >> does this have impact on open carry laws? >> not to my knowledge. >> so those still stay the same. if this were not the case, and if i were from the wild west, as people have assumed, and i d have a concealed weapon permit, and i wanted to drive back here to this bastion of civilization we call washington, d.c., what would i have to do with that perm as i drove from state to state to state, if this bill were not in effect. >> under current law, you would not be able to take that firemen from state to state. >> so i would have to wait and to the first state i got check what their laws were and either put it in the trunk or continue to carry. then i can take it back out the next state i got to. >> correct. under current law, of course, because d.c. has chosen affirmatively not to allow concealed carry, you ultimately would not be able to drive into the district of columbia under

those conditions. >> since it would be very difficult for the average gun owner that has a concealed weapon permit to know the intricacies of every state, would it not be a significant disadvantage for them to have to do that, or at least it would be -- let's put it in a positive way, a significant advantage for them to realize that would not have to be a practice of stopping hiding it, stopping, unading it, stopping, hiding it one more time. >> that's correct. >> obviously the chairman, i'll always yield. i'm not a fool. >> that would be the case under the legislation itself. >> that's correct. good point. >> you'd also, as you go from state to state, as the chairman has indicated, you still have to obey the laws of that state. once you've got the permit. >> one of the wonderful things -- >> whether you go into a bar with a concealed weapon, some schools, some colleges.

but you'd have to abide by the state law. you'd have to know all those state laws as you go from state to state anyway, whether this bill passes or not. >> probably a good point. i guess the first step is a first step in the right direction. mr. smith, if i could ask a couple others. john lott who ed to be from the university of chicago, was he part of the testifying process for this? would any of his studies added to the record? >> study cited and put into the record. he, himself, did not testify. >> when you said the studies have indicated those states that have a more rational approach to allow people to have concealed weapons permits, rational approach, to be able to defend themselves with guns, have a better record as far as the overall cre rate concerned based on economic work. >> if i may go into detail. based on data from fbi annual crime report, the right to cay states, those that widely allow

concealed carry 22% lower total crime rates, 46% lower robbery rates, 12% less aggravated assault rates as compared to the rest of the country. >> mr. chairman even though it looks like that was a setup question, i did not know if you had dealt with john lott. i do know john lott, have worked with him in the past, read his studies. it was a litimate question of inquiry. >> he's conducted several studies all with the same results. >> we have -- we've lked in some detail about comparing driver's license, which you do have the ability going with a concealed apon permit license. is there not at least some distinction between those two? ie, is not a driver's license not priveged covered by any part of the constitution as a constitutional right, vis-a-vis a concealed weapon permit which does deal with a second amendment right in the constitution, which is certainly

not a privilege but, indeed, a constitutional right? >> between the two, i think i know where you're headed. the second amendment right to carry an use a firemen certainly would be even stronger than, say, a driver's license which is not necessarily constitutionally correct. >> in trying to balance this equation, states rights as well as constitutional right of the second amendment, it is a balancing act. i feel somewhat frustrated that people all of a sudden want to use states rights now when they haven't used them in other situations. also feel a significant act a constitutional right should take prosecutes denies in some way, shape, or form over a principle, a privilege, i.e., driver's license, other kinds of license that is may be there, it is frustrating to me that congress in year's past has volated both states rights as well as the constitutional right for the second amendment in things like the lautenberg amendment which tried to trump it and was

opposed by theaw enforcement agencies at the time. onso we have a history of doing things improperly in the past, which i hope we can change going forward. i also found unique philosophy we heard recently in this meeting dealing with the militia. that certainly violates what james madison defined at a militia and purpose of a militia as well as what james madison wrote when it deals with whether peoplehould have a gun and know how to use it. i certainly heard some unique concepts here about what we should do to individuals to prohibit a predescribed incident which may or may not happen in the future. i realize we've had unique concepts here as to the difference between a privilege of somebody in a state versus a constitutional right of somebody in a state. since i don't have a concealed weapon permit, i don't ve to have a problem of driving and loading and unloading my car

within every state boundary i hit. >> that's correct. i think the fundamental point there is a strong constitutional right to bear arms is something that should be respected and guarded. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would like to point to other organizations, as mr. scott did, that are supportive of this measure not being passed. and just in case of mr. smith doesn't know about those, perhaps he does know about the american bar association and the association of prosecuting attorneys. not public defenders but prosecuting attorneys. >> certainly the american bar association in recent years has become a very liberal organization, so their endorsement is not aurprise or

their opposition is not a surprise. >> i find that interesting having served on several committees in that group and didn't find all those liberal that you're talking about. but i hear you. i want to make it very clear and go a little bit to his point that i imagine lifting from an article today written by frank -- no, in october written by frank brune, it has the title "have glock will travel." imagine how apthey would be if they had to be values, new york, connecticut, honor more per

missive gun control regulations from the south and west. as it happens these three northeastern states all perform maiage equality. same-sex marriages, which more conservative states do not, you have to recognize. so i guess i'll be joining him tomorrow in that argument. let me smack down most immediately the notion that there is newfound attitudes in the democrats offerings that have to do with ate's rights. there are many of us that wouldn't be here if all of states rights had been observed in the way that they were put forward. the problem that you have here in my judgment is that the

states have put forward a considerable amount of time trying to determine just what is best for their citizenry with reference to safety. last night i was at event in fort lauderdale and the sheriff of broward county, one of our colleagues on this committee is a former sheriff. the sheriff of my county is republican and a friend of mine, a.m. alarm berty. when -- when i pointed out, in addition to his being astounded we would be doing this, the exchange we had is why would anybody want to become a police officer with this kind of confusi

confusion. if this were to be granted by the senate and president, signed where we would go. i want to ask you, mr. smith, you mention the inlet system. which states do not have the inlet system? >> i will have to check. i think something around 12 to 17 have the inlet system. as i say, you can now call into the database from outside of those states. >> so a police officer at 3:00 a.m. in the morning in one of those states that makes a stop, or mr. scott pointed to that, what is that person's -- >> that is, i think, just a difference -- that is a factual question. it's my undetanding you can call in 24 hours a day. mr. scott recalls durg our hearing that was not necessarily the case. we'll have to determine what is accurate. >> i gather, then, you don't

think police officers have enough to do by stopping people, now we're going to allow for this. >> no, i wouldn't want to have the record reflect that that's my view. i do think protecting the fundamental right to bear arms is worth doing even if it takes up some time. >> then t's go to an airport and talk about taking up some time. i just got off of an airplane with 240 people on it. and i'm sure many members in here did as well. what happens when 40 of them show up at the airport? and i doubt very seriously if on any given day on any one airplane that would be the case. let me tell you how that might work. let's say somebody was leaving the gun show that just took place in marietta, georgia, and was on their